However, sometimes past decisions shape our present inconveniences over an enduring horizon. Let’s take our daily keyboards as an example. They were designed to be inefficient: when using typewriters, it was key not to type too fast as the spokes carrying the metal letters to the paper could get tangled. Nowadays, nothing theoretically prevents us from revisiting this initial design to adopt a better solution, adapted with today’s technology in mind. Unfortunately, from this initially inefficient design, sub-branches or alternative solutions co-exist, making the standardization of approaches even more difficult. In France, the AZERTY keyboard swaps the A&Q and Z&W keys (from the QWERTY alternative), the M key sits directly to the right of L key, and while numerals 1 to 0 live in the same place as the QWERTY keyboard, they require the shift key to activate. As an aside, I challenge anyone to correctly type their passwords on an AZERTY layout, having established them on a QWERTY board! This illustrates how difficult it can be to move away from unfortunate path dependency.

In our everyday work, we persist with technology which could be improved or replaced. From character limits for seismic volume names, to various ways to run a data processing step with 10 to 15 year-old algorithms, somewhat ironically named “Fast”, many tools and solutions could be replaced by newer ones. Yet, we face reluctance to upgrade to new and better solutions for multiple reasons: economic considerations, competing priorities, lack of know-how or resources, alongside an unwillingness to let go of any pieces of information on the off chance that they prove useful in future, no matter how inconsequential they may actually be.