There are many things in tech that have stagnated, or become standards that we’re stuck with. But we’re stuck with them not because nobody can do better, but because replacing them requires convincing the whole world to replace them.
Like email 2.0? You’d need it to be fully compatible with email 1.0, or nobody’s switching. And if it is fully compatible, you’re probably making compromises on how much it improves over 1.0.
On the other hand, as an end-user, my experience with email is easier than it was 20 years ago. This isn’t the technology changing, but email clients making things better and more accessible for the end user.
As to your other point, we don’t need “thinking machines” or “electronic telepathy” to consider the feasibility of technology replacing or reducing the need for certain types of jobs. Like I said, 20 years is a long time. Some things stay the same, yes, but many change.
There are many things in tech that have stagnated, or become standards that we’re stuck with. But we’re stuck with them not because nobody can do better, but because replacing them requires convincing the whole world to replace them.
Like email 2.0? You’d need it to be fully compatible with email 1.0, or nobody’s switching. And if it is fully compatible, you’re probably making compromises on how much it improves over 1.0.
On the other hand, as an end-user, my experience with email is easier than it was 20 years ago. This isn’t the technology changing, but email clients making things better and more accessible for the end user.
As to your other point, we don’t need “thinking machines” or “electronic telepathy” to consider the feasibility of technology replacing or reducing the need for certain types of jobs. Like I said, 20 years is a long time. Some things stay the same, yes, but many change.
deleted by creator