The shock of the new: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|design|[[File: Liverpool modern.jpg|450px|center|Seemed like a good idea at the time.|thumb]]}}Random thoughts on the impermanence of modernism. | {{a|design|[[File: Liverpool modern.jpg|450px|center|Seemed like a good idea at the time.|thumb]]}}Random thoughts on the impermanence of [[modernism]]. | ||
===The curse of novelty=== | |||
What is new cannot last ''as the new''. Either it dies, or it grows ''old''. So if your only quality is novelty, you will [[Die Young, Stay Pretty|die young]]. Conclusion: build with qualities ''other than novelty''. If only novelty gets you out of the gate — ''enjoy your fifteen minutes''. Blondie had it backwards: [[Die Young, Stay Pretty|Stay pretty? ''Die young'']]. | |||
Clean lines and flat panels | Clean lines and flat panels don’t age well. They don’t take dirt. Old structures ''do'' age well. Dirt and grime ''enhances'' them: gives them an air of ''permanence''. This is maybe a variety of [[Anti-fragile|anti-fragility]]. If your sense of modern is such that it is rendered vulnerable by atrophy, rather than simply stoic, and dignified, steer clear of it. Dirt is [[Signal-to-noise ratio|noise]]. Dignity is [[Signal-to-noise ratio|signal]]. Don't benefit from survivor bias that strips noise from signal. | ||
===Innovation and plausibility=== | |||
[[Legaltech]] plausibility heuristic — ask: ''why hasn’'t it been done before now?'' | |||
''Good'' answers: “The [[technology]] did not exist before now.” “The regulation did not allow it till now.” | |||
''Bad'' answers: “The market is not yet ready for it.” “Customers lack the necessary vision.”<ref>This is another way of framing the observation: “we do not understand what our customer wants”.</ref> | |||
Most nascent [[legaltech]] has only bad answers. | |||
(“AI”, machine learning, neural networks ≠ “tech that didn't exist till now”.) | |||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Modernism]] | *[[Modernism]] | ||
*[[Legaltech]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||
Revision as of 14:25, 28 October 2021
|
The design of organisations and products
|
Random thoughts on the impermanence of modernism.
The curse of novelty
What is new cannot last as the new. Either it dies, or it grows old. So if your only quality is novelty, you will die young. Conclusion: build with qualities other than novelty. If only novelty gets you out of the gate — enjoy your fifteen minutes. Blondie had it backwards: Stay pretty? Die young.
Clean lines and flat panels don’t age well. They don’t take dirt. Old structures do age well. Dirt and grime enhances them: gives them an air of permanence. This is maybe a variety of anti-fragility. If your sense of modern is such that it is rendered vulnerable by atrophy, rather than simply stoic, and dignified, steer clear of it. Dirt is noise. Dignity is signal. Don't benefit from survivor bias that strips noise from signal.
Innovation and plausibility
Legaltech plausibility heuristic — ask: why hasn’'t it been done before now?
Good answers: “The technology did not exist before now.” “The regulation did not allow it till now.”
Bad answers: “The market is not yet ready for it.” “Customers lack the necessary vision.”[1]
Most nascent legaltech has only bad answers.
(“AI”, machine learning, neural networks ≠ “tech that didn't exist till now”.)
See also
References
- ↑ This is another way of framing the observation: “we do not understand what our customer wants”.