3 ms·

The exception is with software. You can future proof by making something into a general purpose computer that can be updated. Also, by modularity, and by choos

The exception is with software. You can future proof by making something into a general purpose computer that can be updated. Also, by modularity, and by choosing up and coming stuff that is clearly going to be big(Like the next generation of an existing technology). Buying something before you need it can definitely be a High Crime against your own happiness. But future proofing can sometimes be a tool to avoid owning more "Stuff" without giving up functionality. I just bought a MOLLE backpack. I expect the webbing standard to be around, and that possibility in the future I might want to briefly carry more stuff than normal, but I don't need to buy anything but the pouches I want right now. I also bought a solar generator. I was sure to choose one with LiFePo4 and USB-PD inputs(Unfortunately, it still comes with a dedicated DC power adapter that I do not want, but is otherwise wonderful). Of all the tech items I own, my phone and laptop probably inspire the most confidence. I also like my Fire Stick. I rarely regret buying something that's just a general purpose computer in disguise. They have the adaptability built in, without the need to add hardware. I also rarely regret choosing modularity. Not so much in software, I don't do UNIXy stuff, because even a dozen large apps is still a trivial amount of storage on a modern disk. But with hardware, the more standard all the connections are, the less I have to own. If I use something once a month, I don't want to drag out a special charger. I don't want adapter dongles in my ports. I don't want uncommon consumables that only come from one company. My idea of future proofing is to mostly avoid dedicated hardware.

rockemsockem 4y ago
My experience has been that software is where this is the strongest. The term YAGNI (you ain't gonna need it) is very much a precursor to this mindset, but I have found that you can go further by just trying to write software that's easy to change and update. However you should not do that by preemptive interface-design, etc, you should just focus on what actually makes it easier to swap things out.
jacknews 4y ago
Yes modularity and standardization is the key to longevity, because it gives you flexibility, upgradability, repairability, etc. I can still use all my home's wiring and light switch boxes, even though I now have LED lights, and various dimmer, electronic and remote light switches. Because it is all standard and modular. In contrast I have to junk my entire blender, including the perfectly functioning base/motor unit, because a small plastic catch which secures the bowl to the base snapped off. Since the whole thing is proprietary, not a standard connection, replacements are not available economically. If it were standard, I can imaging all kinds of specialist bowls being available, with new designs being created to cater for the latest cooking fashions.
- eternityforest 4y ago
  Standards are one of the things that really defines modern tech. It's usually fine when they change, because adapters will be made, as long as the new thing becomes the most common standard, so they don't even block innovation, in fact they probably create more innovation that nonstandard designs, because you can do things that requires huge volumes to do cheaply. If blenders were standard, knife sharpeners would probably use the same base too. If it had a power connections vacuum blender bowls would use it. If it had digital control, you'd have baseplates to use magic bullet cups on a normal blender with the same push to activate system. The world could have a lot less junk in it. I wish the government or some foundation would start a department of standards development, and teach consumers why they should choose approved gear that uses all the relevant specs.

rockemsockem 4y ago

My experience has been that software is where this is the strongest. The term YAGNI (you ain't gonna need it) is very much a precursor to this mindset, but I have found that you can go further by just trying to write software that's easy to change and update. However you should not do that by preemptive interface-design, etc, you should just focus on what actually makes it easier to swap things out.

jacknews 4y ago

Yes modularity and standardization is the key to longevity, because it gives you flexibility, upgradability, repairability, etc. I can still use all my home's wiring and light switch boxes, even though I now have LED lights, and various dimmer, electronic and remote light switches. Because it is all standard and modular. In contrast I have to junk my entire blender, including the perfectly functioning base/motor unit, because a small plastic catch which secures the bowl to the base snapped off. Since the whole thing is proprietary, not a standard connection, replacements are not available economically. If it were standard, I can imaging all kinds of specialist bowls being available, with new designs being created to cater for the latest cooking fashions.

eternityforest 4y ago
Standards are one of the things that really defines modern tech. It's usually fine when they change, because adapters will be made, as long as the new thing becomes the most common standard, so they don't even block innovation, in fact they probably create more innovation that nonstandard designs, because you can do things that requires huge volumes to do cheaply. If blenders were standard, knife sharpeners would probably use the same base too. If it had a power connections vacuum blender bowls would use it. If it had digital control, you'd have baseplates to use magic bullet cups on a normal blender with the same push to activate system. The world could have a lot less junk in it. I wish the government or some foundation would start a department of standards development, and teach consumers why they should choose approved gear that uses all the relevant specs.