> the hardness of its pillars makes them brittle, not strong, so they cannot be used to build upon I think this is generally correct. Most of the time starting

> the hardness of its pillars makes them brittle, not strong, so they cannot be used to build upon I think this is generally correct. Most of the time starting over from a clean sheet leads to something that will be discarded by history. And you're much more likely to build something of lasting value if you look for a small contribution to make within the general scaffold of the status quo. But this leaves open an interesting question: When does a clean sheet reset lead to something the work can build upon? In my opinion, tech progresses in phases of expansion and contraction. In the expansion phase, people take the status quo for granted, and add useful refinements in niche areas. In the contraction phase, the status quo has calcified a bit, and there are many unnecessary assumptions baked into the architecture. This phase in the cycle is ripe for someone to come in, tear out all of those assumptions and start new foundations. Those foundations will be weak in many areas, but users can stomach that because the status quo was already beginning to really slow them down. This is the classic "disruptive technology" moment. The question I think for anyone wanting to make a contribution is: When you look at your problem domain, where in the cycle do we seem to be?