Just a note when you hear any suggestion that new ideas can solve old problems.
In the business and practice of science - I come from the particle physics world - any new theory, suggestion of a change in principles, or a change in the practices of applying the theory, must be falsifiable to be considered a candidate for experimentalist (that was me) to be interested.
Falsifiable theories must make predictions that can then be tested.
So when someone postulates that such-and-such version 2.0 is now a replacement for the old such-and-such version 1.0, they are putting forth a "theory." In order to falsify this theory - that is show it is a candidate for replacement, the theory must make predictions is some sort. Something like...
My new proposal solves problems in this way and can be tested in that way in a broad enough set of examples to be statistically significant.
"Enough samples" usually means 15 to 30 - considering the Clopper-Pearson testing applied to the population of possible places the new "thing" can be applied.
So the next time you hear someone say, my approach is much better than the old approach and you shoudl start using it, you can ask, how can you show that your approach can be tested?
