> Why do you think speed is a good metric?

Because time is the great equalizer. Everyone only gets 86400 seconds in the day. How you spend them is up to you.

There are some things with a very steep learning curve, like vim, that one decides for themselves if it's worth investing their time in to learn. Or not. Most things have a shallower learning curve though, thankfully. The first time you interact with Docker, how do you know you're ever going to use it again? How do you know you're going to reap rewards of those 20 minutes. How do you know which of the dozen random tool you come across on a stroll of the Internet is worth investing the 20 minutes? Apriori, you can't.

So you copy and paste in 2 seconds, and if it turns out that you use that tool more than once, then go take those 20 minutes and learn how to use it right and use it well. What's the opportunity cost of those 28 minutes? What other piece of technology could this user have been learning? Is there something more appropriate for their particular role? Maybe it's something that's not even computer related that's important for their life.

> Because time is the great equalizer. Everyone only gets 86400 seconds in the day. How you spend them is up to you.

It is important to remember that while this is true time is not the ONLY criteria.