Maybe old methodologies will be discarded and new ones will emerge.

Thinking back, when I first started teaching myself programming, I didn't know what to learn, so I explored the history of programming and organized it as I went.

One of the most striking things I remember is that when Stack Overflow first launched, quite a few people opposed it.

Also, I recall that in ancient Greece, Socrates criticized writing, saying it would weaken human memory.

When SO first appeared, there were many who insisted that the only proper programmer's way was to RTFM, deeply understand the system's fundamentals, and then write code. I wasn't from that generation—I belonged to the copy-paste-from-SO generation—so I can't say for sure, but I found it quite fascinating.

The cost of that friction could only be borne by a very small minority, and that minority could guarantee quality. That's why scholarship was something only the elite could pursue—and to some extent, it still is.

In the past, tasks were painful and high-friction. The results were filtered through that process, accessible only to the few who could endure it. But we tend to mistake those inefficient drops of sweat for quality. In reality, just as writing didn't diminish philosophy but rather created systems like law and philosophy, this might just be another turning point

I think Mr. Lemire's post is similar in spirit. In other words, when friction increases, the cost of production for producers also rises. So back then, everything produced through that high-friction process was easier to quality-control. But that's no longer the case.

And actually, universities were originally about 'holistic education,' but these days, they've become more about training talent for industry and managing human resources for the job market. That shift has caused problems.

In that sense, it's only natural that these problems arise at the intersection of academia and industry.

Industry usually demands 'people and technologies that can boost productivity right now.' Meanwhile, academia should ideally pursue problems worth exploring over the long term, even if they have no immediate utility. But the current state is a product of compromise.

Once university evaluations, student recruitment, research funding, and employment rates become tightly linked to industry demand, the latter starts to pressure the former. And under those conditions, the current outcome is almost inevitable—because industry increasingly wants to churn out degree stickers at lower and lower costs.

In the end, a different methodology will be needed, and whoever proposes it will become the game changer. Then new schools of thought and methodologies will emerge based on that person, and they'll gain enormous fame. I'm curious who that will be.

New things are always born by laying the past to rest. I'm always waiting for that new methodology.