New things become obsolete faster than old things.

It is interesting to note the paradox that when looking at various tools, the "new" ones are more likely to become "outdated" than the "old" ones. Even though word processors have been replaced by computers and tablets, paper and pencils are still in use, and even though Dr. Grip has been pushed out of the market by Kurtoga, Mitsubishi Pencil continues to sell well.

In other words, "pen and paper" had "advantages that word processors do not have," so they were able to coexist even in the age of word processors without being eradicated. It could be the cost, the intuitiveness of the interface, the resolution, or the ease of using images and text together. Paper books are like that, too.

The things that are somewhat ridiculed today as "primitive tools" are basically those that have won the "battle for superiority" over thousands of years, so it is unlikely that they will all be stripped of their superiority in a few years or a few decades.

> In addition, I don't think this is limited to material culture. Despite all the talk about the "new normal," in the end, human beings have not found anything that can override the "extremely primitive form of festivals" in which people gather together to drink, move around, and sing songs.

Because it is "the old that survived" vs. "the new that has not yet been sifted out," if you bring in "the old that did not survive" for comparison, well, more than 90% of what was created will be obsolete, right?

In the case of computer-related technology, I have a feeling that useful libraries that came out last year may be obsolete next year, but those that have been in use for 10 years will probably still be in use 10 years from now.

As the reply says, the "old ones" we see today are the ones that survived the [Test of Time

So compared to the "ones that haven't yet passed the test of time" that were born last year, they have a better chance of winning through to next year.

relevance

---