This is good, but I have to push back a bit on your "perfect age" statement. I'm older - geriatric Gen X?! - and I think much of this applies to my cohort and everyone in between. Personally, I hate food delivery and Uber (I'm a transit nerd), so maybe I don't "appreciate" the changes as much. That said, though, I notice and am grateful for many of them every day. I do remember "long distance" phone calls, very expensive flights (and more frequent crashes), and, as an enthusiastic correspondent with far-flung friends, the vagaries of snail mail.
Re fn 1, I would argue that lawyers are perhaps uniquely terrible with technology. I am a lawyer, but don't practice. My husband (similar age to me) is part of a law firm, and can barely use his gmail or Office suite. His colleagues, and my law school friends who have remained immersed in Law World, are the same, even younger ones. I'm sure the Very Youngs new to the firm are better, but the tech unsavviness goes deeper than one would expect. I think part of the reason is that, at least in private practice, there is still so much support staff, and attorneys are unaccustomed, or unwilling, to do things perceived as menial for themselves.
Thank you! And yes, I really hate generational discourse in part because I can't argue with this. It's so heavily based in stereotypes and those always breakdown.
That's a really good point about lawyers. If I'm being realistic I'm also more tech savvy than most of the lawyers I work with who are 10-15 years younger than me too. We may just be a uniquely un tech savvy profession.
We need better avenues for smart people. A lot of people want to work on something useful, but end up accepting jobs at "tech" companies of questionable value because that's where the jobs are.
I also think the lack of a clear existential threat hurts innovation. Climate change isn't gonna do it, so there's no grand incentive to improve things in a major way.
To me it's paradoxical. Part of the ridiculous splurge of creativity of the Second Industrial Revolution was how much of it was being done by random smart people working on their own. Theoretically, modern technology should facilitate the same degree of inventiveness but instead everyone just goes to work for Google or Facebook. I'm puzzled by why that is and why it hasn't worked out similarly.
Maybe we picked the low-hanging fruit. I think tons of random engineers could create all the items that Tesla and Edison created. Now you need 20 years of physics experience to increase the efficiency of something by 0.001%.
And maybe we've also added a low-hanging fruit for high paying bullshit. Back in Edison's days, there might not have been many well-paying professional jobs, leaving more incentive to try something on your own. Now you can get paid six figures at Google, Goldman Sachs, or some startup that never turns a profit while spending the entire day on Substack.
"the only people who appreciate technological advances are those there at the moment they occur"
During COVID I watched the TV series about the Oxford detectives,_ Morse_ which is such a long running series that new technologies are gradually incorporated (an older cranky luddite detective and younger tech detective) --you do see the moments somewhat.
This reminds me of how weird shows in the 90s were as characters slowly had to get cellphones and use email. Also I just looked that up and it sounds like it's worth watching!
This is good, but I have to push back a bit on your "perfect age" statement. I'm older - geriatric Gen X?! - and I think much of this applies to my cohort and everyone in between. Personally, I hate food delivery and Uber (I'm a transit nerd), so maybe I don't "appreciate" the changes as much. That said, though, I notice and am grateful for many of them every day. I do remember "long distance" phone calls, very expensive flights (and more frequent crashes), and, as an enthusiastic correspondent with far-flung friends, the vagaries of snail mail.
Re fn 1, I would argue that lawyers are perhaps uniquely terrible with technology. I am a lawyer, but don't practice. My husband (similar age to me) is part of a law firm, and can barely use his gmail or Office suite. His colleagues, and my law school friends who have remained immersed in Law World, are the same, even younger ones. I'm sure the Very Youngs new to the firm are better, but the tech unsavviness goes deeper than one would expect. I think part of the reason is that, at least in private practice, there is still so much support staff, and attorneys are unaccustomed, or unwilling, to do things perceived as menial for themselves.
Really enjoying this series!
Thank you! And yes, I really hate generational discourse in part because I can't argue with this. It's so heavily based in stereotypes and those always breakdown.
That's a really good point about lawyers. If I'm being realistic I'm also more tech savvy than most of the lawyers I work with who are 10-15 years younger than me too. We may just be a uniquely un tech savvy profession.
We need better avenues for smart people. A lot of people want to work on something useful, but end up accepting jobs at "tech" companies of questionable value because that's where the jobs are.
I also think the lack of a clear existential threat hurts innovation. Climate change isn't gonna do it, so there's no grand incentive to improve things in a major way.
To me it's paradoxical. Part of the ridiculous splurge of creativity of the Second Industrial Revolution was how much of it was being done by random smart people working on their own. Theoretically, modern technology should facilitate the same degree of inventiveness but instead everyone just goes to work for Google or Facebook. I'm puzzled by why that is and why it hasn't worked out similarly.
Maybe we picked the low-hanging fruit. I think tons of random engineers could create all the items that Tesla and Edison created. Now you need 20 years of physics experience to increase the efficiency of something by 0.001%.
And maybe we've also added a low-hanging fruit for high paying bullshit. Back in Edison's days, there might not have been many well-paying professional jobs, leaving more incentive to try something on your own. Now you can get paid six figures at Google, Goldman Sachs, or some startup that never turns a profit while spending the entire day on Substack.
"the only people who appreciate technological advances are those there at the moment they occur"
During COVID I watched the TV series about the Oxford detectives,_ Morse_ which is such a long running series that new technologies are gradually incorporated (an older cranky luddite detective and younger tech detective) --you do see the moments somewhat.
This reminds me of how weird shows in the 90s were as characters slowly had to get cellphones and use email. Also I just looked that up and it sounds like it's worth watching!
I like these as much for the tech and changing vehicles as the stories.
Plot twist in the final line!!! Maybe one day you’ll be known as the M. Night Shyamalan of substack.
Fun fact: M. Night lives in the same county that I'm from!
That's one of the top 3 fun facts I've heard all week.