Nicely said. The "how much better could it be" argument frustrates me at some levels, particularly in those areas where fundamentally solid science is going on.

Nicely said. The "how much better could it be" argument frustrates me at some levels, particularly in those areas where fundamentally solid science is going on. There is seemingly a constant push to evolve things that "aren't done" (if they were then perhaps they would have evolved themselves to some other area/field). "Making it better" is a worthy goal, but I've seen, as you've precisely pointed out, that turn into academic discussions (and funding) completely out of touch with the foundation of what they were trying to "make better". For example there is a dedicate forum in an upcoming conference on NFTs and their role in funding the science I work on. In my nightmares I can imagine being asked to setup the infrastructure to support them. This is lunacy, clearly if those good folk are desperate enough to consider this, they are not getting enough $ (they aren't). Science needs time, a lot of it, scientists need the freedom to sit and think, and think, and years later think some more. I would argue that the absence of that type of framework is the root cause of what you point out- chasing the hype train, get on, get off, shallow, superficial ideas, with no reference to the past, well meaning perhaps, but ultimately not strengthening a foundation. A tricky topic indeed.