Whether they were worth removing is another question, but if you could flip a switch and magically replace them with something better (with no cost and a guarantee the replacement would not be a murderous authoritarian) you would of course do it.

The former is the scammy type, the latter is the type we love to work with.

But the same is true in any industry. Too many of us in technology are doing the technology equivalent of 1--becoming experts in C++ or React--instead of becoming deep domain and user experts.

Although illegal now, San Francisco used to have a widespread practice of "key money"--a bribe you paid the landlord to choose you to rent the apartment that due to rent control or other factor was priced below market demand.

Because the landlord was capturing the extra value directly, a cultural practice of high broker fees never developed there, while it did in the east, where bribes were less common. Thus someone other than the landlord captured the excess value.

It's also entirely possible that the broker's fee is being illegally passed as "key money" to the landlord in a way that's harder to detect/litigate in NYC because it's not direct from the tenant.

Astro is an SSR more tuned to generate static sites than SSR with hydration. It uses the islands architecture instead of full page re-hydration. So if you’re generating a static site with a few react components sprinkled in, it’s a good thing to use.

Because of the islands architecture, you can also mix and match component libraries. So one component can be react, one can be vue, one can be svelte, etc.

Next and remix are both less focused on SSG than Astro. A lot of people are making very content driven sites using react or Next—sites that aren’t really or shouldn’t be SPAs—and this is a great tool for content driven sites that don’t benefit from SPA-level interactivity (which is probably most sites using SPA frameworks)