An aspect of this I find interesting is that previously effort was a reasonably good barrier to making something new. If a feature/library existed someone cared enough to put the work in to make it exist.
Now it’s just a question of tokens. The presentation/feature list is no sign of effort or caring. So we get limitless new shiny things to try and filter through
It’s possibly a good thing in disguise. Maybe it will make software dev finally more inclined to focus on tested and true technologies rather than chasing trendy novelty stuff.
(Oh, who am I kidding, it’s AI that do tech decisions now and they choose whatever stuff that’s overrepresented in their training data, or just NIH stuff, which has inexplicably become a virtue, like measuring progress by lines of code spent has become. )
This is just a rebranding of novelty bias to make it seem like a new idea
There's a meta-recursion there that's kinda funny innit
Novelty bias is soooo 2025
cant wait till fads are retro again
I wonder if this has any relevance at all to a bunch of new stuff that people on HN seem very obsessed over these days.
An aspect of this I find interesting is that previously effort was a reasonably good barrier to making something new. If a feature/library existed someone cared enough to put the work in to make it exist.
Now it’s just a question of tokens. The presentation/feature list is no sign of effort or caring. So we get limitless new shiny things to try and filter through
Pretty sure bringing up tokens immediately is itself an example of this.
It’s possibly a good thing in disguise. Maybe it will make software dev finally more inclined to focus on tested and true technologies rather than chasing trendy novelty stuff.
(Oh, who am I kidding, it’s AI that do tech decisions now and they choose whatever stuff that’s overrepresented in their training data, or just NIH stuff, which has inexplicably become a virtue, like measuring progress by lines of code spent has become. )
In boardgame communities, it’s called “Cult of the New”.