That’s true in that absent very unusual cases, we don’t lose technology, so all the past technology remains. I think that it’s a valid insight.

However, I think that it’s also true to say that there are technologies that – while not gone – fall into disuse because of a changing environment.

You’re saying that a “better” technology will remain, and for certain definitions of “better”, I agree. We have no reason, absent maybe a changing environment that makes what is “best” different at different points in time or changing understanding of what is “best” (e.g. maybe internal combustion vehicles going away as we understand the impact of carbon dioxide emissions) to stop using a better technology.

But OP is specific in distinguishing between “best” and “coolest”:

I don’t mean BETTER. That’s a different conversation. I mean cooler.

So I think that his question is valid.

Bet you’re fun at parties.

Nope, your premise is flawed.

You forget that “cool” does not equal “better”, cool is a vibe, better is a fact.

Minidisc players are cool and futuristic, but an iPhone is a better music player, but not as cool.

The starting scene of The Matrix would not have been as cool if Neo just handed the guy a USB stick, rather than a Minidisc.

A wall full of 12” vinyl versus a hard drive full of flac files? We’re talking cooler - not better. Relax a bit, read the question again.

And I am sorry that you apparently don’t know how to read

Cooler and better are different concepts, and literally everyone else got the idea.

I’m. sorry you couldn’t contribute to this conversation constructively but in fact there is nothing you could have added anyway - other people post better comments than you every time a minute goes by. Sorry, but your comments premise is flawed.