Yet, even though I found the old version very influential and a great read at the time, the updated version feels a bit quaint for me. Especially because it uses old metaphors. The author mentions the "Broken Windows" Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory Especially as it moved towards Stop-and-Frisk in NY, I would not use it in a technical book today: https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-poli...
Another one is the "Boiled Frog" from Topic 4:
"We've never tried this—honest. But “they” say that if you take a frog and drop it into boiling water, it will jump straight back out again. However, if you place the frog in a pan of cold water, then gradually heat it, the frog won't notice the slow increase in temperature and will stay put until cooked."
The same as with the broken window, it's just not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
It makes it hard for me (personally) to use the lessons of the book (cognitive dissonance ... "wait but a frog would jump out" ... ). Given the work that went into the anniversary book, I am wonder if the authors could not have found better fitting metaphors.
Edit: clarity + typos.