[Mouvelie]

I always say that time is the best filter.

In the moment, you can be easily mistaken that something is good, or the best even if the marketing team of that something is really going hard at your wallet. But the only way, and they know it too well, to assess quality is to simply...wait and see later.

If you need a proof, here's one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookshop_Memories The "it was better before" is not a recent phenomenon, I think.

[borroka]

In fact, I wrote about the selection effect, but that "it was better before" is not holding up in my example, at least the one I had in mind.

Some decades in the past were not particularly good in terms of literary output (I am very familiar with literature in my native language and know much more than average in two or three other languages), but the last decade has been incredibly poor. And I suspect that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find original ideas. As time goes by, the average technical competence of artists almost inevitably increases, but the same cannot necessarily be said for creativity, for example.

[Geste]

>And I suspect that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find original ideas. That is a bias in itself, as originality should naturally grow with the number of people alive. The best time to catch one in a million ideas should be when we are more and more billions, no ?