I feel the same. I think the reason is that GenAI has effectively abstracted away the tooling layer. Not perfectly, and not always efficiently, but in terms of going from requirements → workable outcome, it has removed much of the pain of choosing one developer experience over another.
I find your perspective interesting, but have the feeling that you are not thinking in systems (!). The sensory systems are perceptual systems, but they are subsystems of a larger "cognitive" system, and we cannot be sure that it exhibits the same logarithmic response behavior.
I am thinking more of an automatic ability to see how things are related. Chinese language(s) ↔ Taoism, in the context of a holistic approach to worldview [0]. I know I am exaggerating, but maybe some meditative training could help in this regard?
I actually wonder if humans lack a crucial adaptive advantage if they do not intuitively understand how systems work. But then it occurs to me that some ancient philosophies and religions emphasised the need to be in tune with the surrounding world.
Yes, traditionally you need the 5% of error, or even 1%. Also the partial eta-squared is the ANOVA measure for the size of the effects studied, which happens to be very low too: 9%.
That's the reason Scala doesn't guarantee backwards compatibility for major releases. Of course, there is always someone who complaints about it not being enterprise ready.
Yet, this law is so embedded in us that practicing kindness even towards a rock makes us feel good.
So practice kindness, first and foremost for yourself.