3 ms·
I think the challenge would be in defining "quality" in a way that allows you to compare between multiple different technologies. If the definition ends up alig
by Cyph0n 5y ago
I think the challenge would be in defining "quality" in a way that allows you to compare between multiple different technologies. If the definition ends up aligning with what large companies look for when adopting a new technology, then the signal ends up being the same.
I definitely agree with the notion that the early adopter group is more often than not more talented than average. But, I'm sure companies also take this into account when deciding whether or not to pick a new technology.
- jorangreef 5y agoIs it really a challenge if "quality" is a measure of being fit for purpose? You don't necessarily have to compare across every technology if you are able to recognize a great tool that does what you need. "If the definition ends up aligning with what large companies look for when adopting a new technology, then the signal ends up being the same." And even then, the signal is only the same, but it's not worse. Whereas if large companies don't always optimize for quality, but have other incentives at play, or if they are less nimble, or less efficient, then looking for what large companies look for might actually end up setting you back with worse signal. So there's no upside I think.