[optimalquiet]

A phrase I hate even more than “modern” is “x is the future”, especially when used to describe a technology that only works for certain use cases.

It’s an attempt to use social pressure and bullying tactics to enforce a technological consensus. I particularly dislike it when it’s used to dismiss legitimate concerns with missing features in new technology instead of acknowledging room for growth and development and the real diversity in user needs.

[JohnFen]

"x is the future" is a sales pitch, nothing more, and can therefore be safely and completely ignored.

[optimalquiet]

I see it used more often by hobbyists interested in crowding out alternatives they don’t like. “Why are you using snap? Flatpak is the future!” “What, you’re still using Xorg in nvidia? But Wayland is the future!”

And I like flatpak and Wayland! But the contexts I’m discussing aren’t “We’re creating the future of x at Company Y”… of course that’s a sales pitch that can be ignored. But there is a context where it’s more like bullying.

[JohnFen]

> I see it used more often by hobbyists interested in crowding out alternatives they don’t like.

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

[rolph]

--can therefore be safely and completely ignored, until a large number of people believe it.

[etiam]

The chances of the statement being complete bullshit nears certainty in most contexts today, so ignoring it as an argument would be a great course of action as such. Unfortunately the person-like thing making the statement, or its backend organization, often has leverage to make it a pain continuing to use the existing, functional, sane, tasteful solution/tool/feature/model/etc. For that reason the threat must often be taken seriously as an attack on the existing order.

[LtWorf]

I thought x was the past and wayland the future!