when steam engines were replaced with the otto motor and cars became available to the general population, people were able to repair and understand the engines themselves. they had an understanding of mechanical principles. a few generations later, and only car nerds understand cars.
everyone else has to go to a mechanic to understand why their car's engine won't start or why it sounds so strange. and those weird mechanics will fix the car for them.
nowadays people are mechanically illiterate.
/s
my point is, when a technology becomes convenient enough so we don't have to think about it while it fulfills it's purpose, then you don't have to understand it to use it.
this creates the need for specialists. is that a bad thing? i say no. who defines what should be basic knowledge and what not? we don't all need to be a mechanic, a chemist, a doctor and an ITC pro.
I don't think the point of that "Kids can't use computers" article is that everyone should be technically proficient with computers. Rather, it's an argument against the common misconception that kids have a natural technical proficiency with computers because they grew up with them.
The author makes his point pretty clear here:
> Not really knowing how to use a computer is deemed acceptable if you're twenty-five or over. It's something that some people are even perversely proud of, but the prevailing wisdom is that all under eighteens are technical wizards, and this is simply not true.
He then offers some suggestions for how to help kids become more technically proficient with computers because he thinks it's a useful skill to have.
Okay but people who aren't mechanics, but drive, still know how to do things like turn the car on, and understand that if they turn the steering wheel right, the wheels point to the right. They understand that the car needs gas, even if they don't really know why it needs gas.
People who don't know how to use computers treat them like a magic box that may or may not do what they want to, if they use the right magical incantation.
Computers inexplicably don't do what you want them to do all the time, though. Modern cars, by contrast, are incredibly reliable even with extremely insufficient maintenance.
I beg to differ: my Mazda MX-5 has a lane departure warning system that flatly gets it wrong all the time. My prior car, a Scion iA, mis-triggered the "smart city breaking" on the freeway and nearly caused an accident. The infotainment system fails bluetooth connections inexplicably, and flatly refuses at accept CarPlay or Android Auto connections periodically. And I keep my cars clean and current with maintenance.
I think you’d be surprised just how much new car owners/drivers do not know about how to work a car. The number of people I’ve seen confused by how to fill a gas tank — let alone what type of gas to use, is massive. And it’ll only get worse as we move to electric and self-driving cars.
And then there is the stuff that is often different car to car, like where lights are, how to adjust certain settings. Want to pair the Bluetooth in your Mercedes to your phone? I consider myself extremely proficient at computers and absolutely know how to use one in almost any capacity and even I’ve struggled with its lunacy (which is much more a reflection on Mercedes bad in-car systems that vary model year to model year and can differ based on what options your dealer ordered).
Maybe in Oregon. Everywhere I've lived people haven't panicked over filling up their gas tank? As a matter of fact I've never encountered a single person ever wandering around the gas station parking lot asking other for help on filling their tank....
Perhaps tangential - but what Mercedes models are you referring to? I've driven multiple recent Mercedes, A220, C300, CLA250, and have never had a real problem connecting the bluetooth on my phone. I believe all of these models have had a spin-dial media interface though - I can't stand touchscreen interfaces in cars - totally unintuitive and inconvenient while you're driving.
> when a technology becomes convenient enough so we don't have to think about it while it fulfills it's purpose,
Is a tragically limited view of what computers are.
Programmable computers are fundamentally different from steam engines. A steam engine will never be anything except a steam engine. Most of the manufactured objects we encounter in everyday life are similar: single- (or occasionally multi-) purpose goods that do what they were designed to do.
A general-purpose computer is not like this. It can be made to serve virtually infinite purposes. It can be made to do things the manufacturers never imagined anyone doing, and things the manufacturers wished it couldn't do.[0] Almost nothing else has that kind of raw potential for human expression. Perhaps a blank notepad and pen might be analogous.
On the contrary, the analogy is very good. The steam engine represents power. Power can be used for a limitless number of applications. The steam engine is the CPU. You input energy (pressure/electricity) and extract work (mechanical/computational).
I don't think it's the same. A steam engine is more like a wagon or a truck. The steam engine can power many things; a truck can haul many different sorts of goods, but they're still fundamentally single-purpose. The engine powers, the wagon hauls.
I guess you could say a computer computes, but that's using an overly broad term to deliberately elide the point.
Nope. A computer can only do what the apps installed on it let you do, unless you're an IT person.
The things is that you don't need to be an IT person to use applications, as it used to be. So fewer people learn IT skills just so they can play a game or layout a document.
I know very little about cars but drive one daily. I can see how other people don't bother learning about computers just so they can write up a report for their job or order stuff on Amazon.
I like your poetic description of general-purpose computers. But I'm wondering why you think less of general-purpose machinery.
The difference is scarcity and readily available tools to retarget the steam engine for a different workload. A steam engine requires tools made of matter to make it provide mechanical power to another system. In essence, a steam engine is just a power supply.
A general purpose computer, on the other hand, includes a power supply, and generally doesnt need tools that change matter to retarget it for another application; the tools needed to do so are made of information, and are thus readily available.
Granted: we as CS folks and business folks are choking off our own sources of talent by hiding the tools and keys needed to truly examine our systems, all in the name of "user-friendlines", but its still possible to use what is exposed to learn computing basics like how wifi works, or what a proxy server are.
To be frank, I think this distinction is precisely why I get frustrated at computing incompetence: a PC at home isn't locked down and has access to these tools. Anyone can learn -- even using a web browser and notepad to write JS.
In contrast, learning how an engine works requires mass-based tools that are big and expensive and require careful knowledge of how to not harm yourself when disassembling or working on the engine.
This distinction is massive, and yet we still use analogies to cars. Shops with tools are not plentiful and readily accessible to average people, the engines can't be examined from the inside out, coils and springs are dangerous physically. I can't just go looking to take a class, either: not all schools have shops!
> A computer can only do what the apps installed on it let you do, unless you're an IT person.
As recently as the early 2000s, ordinary users were comfortable searching out and installing new software. I remember Napster becoming absolutely massive, and it wasn't because the IT folks installed it for users.
A computer is something you can use to consume content or produce content.
A tablet is something you can only really use to consume content. (Regular tablet, not artist tablet obviously, and those generally have to talk to a computer)
Your own remark about tablets undermine your argument though. iPads and MS Surfaces have been arguably the best 'artist tablets' and they don't need to be hooked up to another computer.
I know. I think that for many people an iPad (or a surface) are better drawing tablets than Wacoms (cheaper, lighter, better screens) and can very well be used for other things than content consumption. (of course Wacom tablets have their benefits too)
Here's the difference: I don't think that being unable to repair your own car engine makes a car less useful. Sure, if your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere, you might be stuck there for a while until you can get it towed, but that doesn't happen too often, and besides, what are the chances you'd be able to repair your car on the side of the road without special equipment or replacement parts?
But the number of things you can do with a computer expands enormously when you know just a little bit of bash scripting, or python, or even Excel!
But smartphone is a computer, personal computer with telephony hardware. And Android is Linux with different userspace, mainline Linux can boot quite a lot of smartphones. Terminology is so wrong.
There is a general purpose computer under there but most people don't interact with it like that. The fact that it can does not mean that it will.
A lot of this has to do with the ecosystem and how a device is presented and what the UX is like. Manufacturers increasingly want to lock things down and hide them away.
> There is a general purpose computer under there but most people don't interact with it like that.
The same could be said about 90% of laptops and desktops purchased for home use. How many people actually use "computers" for tasks they couldn't do on a phone or tablet if those devices had larger screens and keyboard support.
That's been true since 1984 (and whenever Windows caught up ;) ). The enthusiast/hobbyist sector has long been a small minority of the computer buying public.
Windows wasn't really that bad until recently. Sure, it didn't go out of its way to give you tools to command your computer, but it didn't get in the way either.
The true dumbification of computers started with smartphones. iOS and Android are the primary drivers of this change, of treating computers as appliances. Microsoft unfortunately embraced this trend in recent years, they quite openly say Windows is an OS-as-a-Service now[0]. Still leaves plenty of control points to exploit[1], but it starts getting in the way.
Thank you for linking this. I couldn't remember the link but was talking to my partner about this recently now that we're almost a year into distance learning with our son. She remarked how quickly he's picking up on using the computer. (He's using her old Macbook Air.)
I remarked that UI/UX is so simple nowadays that kids aren't gonna have the wherewithal to do their own troubleshooting for bigger issues and how irreparable a lot of devices are now the insides of computers are gonna be completely foreign to them.
It is sad that the original article was written in 2013. I would argue that not much has changed (few more Linux phones were added to the list, but that does not affect the outcome ).
I'm not sure I share the concern. They really expect people to understand or care about things like proxy settings? Everyone doesn't share these interests.
Yeah kids can't use computers, because they don't come with knowledge pre-installed, but the ones who are interested will figure it out. It's not like there's a shortage of resources. And if you're concerned about your own kids, then teach them and they'll have a nice advantage in school.
There has got to be a better way to provide feedback or criticism than just insults like this. Imagine that someone who identifies with what was written reads what you wrote, how would they feel? How would that contribute to constructive discussion? I think it would be more likely to promote flamewars, bad feelings, and general conversational degeneracy.
I think a better comment would isolate what you think is wrong and explain why you think so. Ideally, I think that could be done without referencing the frequency with which people you disagree with have sex.
if you're going to shit on someone and their opinion at least give them the data they need to remediate the situation that you're unhappy about.
The author can't just say to themselves "Oh, apparently someone on the internet thinks that i'm acting too 'incel', let me just tune that down for the next essay." -- incel is too vague to pin down societies meaning of at any given time.
It's like booing someone off stage; it's rude and utterly useless except to express dismay.
It's about as useful to discourse as just saying "tl;dr 0/10"
Experiment i've been having fun with during the recent over-loaded word trend: Any time I hear 'cuck', 'beta', 'incel', or 'based' I ask the person to define it with context to how they used it.
So, my question : What did you mean? Can you define your usage of incel? What about the person made you relate them to the word?
Probably, but I'd say it's not far off from reality for many behavior and perspective wise. I think it unnecessarily transfers the behavior to misogyny (could easily be anyone/any sex), but that's the perspective many hold for those in tech: a means to an end. The addition of sex in the description definitely wasn't needed.
http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-co...