You can't actually get all of those things: speed, team size, low defect rate, high performance, high reliability, simplicity, as they are at odds with each other. Generally, the rule is "good, cheap, fast: pick two."
You literally can get more of all the good things in my list by removing unnecessary complexity from a project. And yes, there really are some technologies that, most of the time you see it being used, the entire project would literally be better off with literally nothing in place of it. And yes, people still prefer to use the trendy thing.
I think a potential overarching point that started this thread: Tech should evolve, but it should also stay steady and simple to use. Too much of the "new" stuff is not just a good natural evolution of people solving problems, it's people adding layers of complexity and fluff where there need be none.
I guess it depends on what you're lumping in with "new stuff". I've experience the opposite quite a lot of refusal to acknowledge that a new constraint or condition has modified the parameters of what a solution is trying to solve, dismissed as one off events or something to monitor, then 6 months later when the problem was isolated becoming the new norm, and monkey patches being required because of refusal to acknowledge that the environment has become more complex.