4 ms·
In my eyes this kind of feels like another sign that things have stagnated in tech (on the fundamental innovations front, not the 'people are doing things' fron
by hwers 5y ago
In my eyes this kind of feels like another sign that things have stagnated in tech (on the fundamental innovations front, not the 'people are doing things' front). There was a massive explosion of thing happening a decade ago but today not so much, even to the point that you can get away with using years old tools without really much disadvantage.
- dvogel 5y agoThis is a pattern I've noticed throughout history. I really wish there was a popular science book that tried to answer the question: why do humans seem to make so much progress with each initial invention? It seems like everything from bridges to antibiotics, the initial inventions have lasting power because they address 80% of the problem. The track record of success inventing an 80% solution as the first entrance is astounding but it is clouded by our focus on the exceptions like flight where we were stumped for a long time. Surely there's some survivorship bias too. We don't remember the bridge designs that failed immediately, but I'm focused less on that. Why are _any_ of the initial designs in so many fields still around? Why are fundamental shifts that completely upend our understanding of fields so rare?
- abvdasker 5y agoI've also noticed this trend, but I never see it discussed or talked about within tech or without. It feels like the second renaissance in computing brought on by the smartphone is petering out. Maybe it's because I'm cynical about cryptocurrency, which is where people say most of the "innovation" is right now.