4 ms·

If you keep a child out of the kitchen because the stove is hot, you'll protect them burning themselves, but you'll also prevent them from learning how to cook.

If you keep a child out of the kitchen because the stove is hot, you'll protect them burning themselves, but you'll also prevent them from learning how to cook. If people don't get the opportunity to fuck up, you arrest their development. Stupid software users then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Users will become dumber than they ever were before, and therefore more and more reliant on software developers to do/make everything for them. In my cynical moments, I suspect this is all intentional... Imagine if the fast food industry were throwing their weight around to promote the idea that children should be kept out of kitchens.

RussianCow 7y ago
This is a nice thought, but based on my experience helping non-technical people with malware and related issues, it's rare that they learn from those experiences, and instead delegate to the nearest techy person to help them fix it. So if people are going to act that way in either case, I would selfishly rather the software just prevent them from doing stupid things in the first place, before I get that call for help.
longblack 7y ago
I think your reasoning here is flawed. People do not all need to develop skills in all aspects of life. By keeping someone from experiencing physical violence you may prevent them from learning how to defend themselves, but by many this would be considered a fair trade. I believe the same is the case with limited control over technology. Most users do not care to learn, and would opt to actively avoid the opportunity to learn if the associated danger was removed for them. In my opinion the best option is to remain in the current state by default and have a more obscure 'power user' option that could be enabled within the OS itself.
JohnBooty 7y ago
Serious question: why should anybody have to learn how a computer works? I mean, I do it for a living and I'm glad I know. But I don't really know how bridges, or electric guitars, or cars, or genetic engineering, or oil paintings work. It's awfully gatekeeper-y to insist that computers should be these totally wide-open, unsafe spaces. I mean it's almost exactly like saying people should know how to rebuild an engine if they want to drive a car. It's certainly good to know how to rebuild an engine, but surely many people should be able to use cars without knowing that...
- longblack 7y ago
  I like your car engine analogy; car's have the same level of widespread use as computers, yet I would wager a large percentage of people would struggle to perform much in term of car maintenance. Anecdotally, I know a multitude of people who have no idea how their car engine works, so much so they would not know how to check the oil level. As a further point, drivers are (with edge case exceptions) not kept away or locked down from performing any work on their vehicle, yet in most cases they would still prefer to pass the responsibility on to a trusted professional.
  - JohnBooty 7y ago
    It's certainly good to know how a car works, or a computer works. Recently, I fixed a number of small (non-drivetrain) things on my car and I wish I knew more.

RussianCow 7y ago

This is a nice thought, but based on my experience helping non-technical people with malware and related issues, it's rare that they learn from those experiences, and instead delegate to the nearest techy person to help them fix it. So if people are going to act that way in either case, I would selfishly rather the software just prevent them from doing stupid things in the first place, before I get that call for help.

longblack 7y ago

I think your reasoning here is flawed. People do not all need to develop skills in all aspects of life. By keeping someone from experiencing physical violence you may prevent them from learning how to defend themselves, but by many this would be considered a fair trade. I believe the same is the case with limited control over technology. Most users do not care to learn, and would opt to actively avoid the opportunity to learn if the associated danger was removed for them. In my opinion the best option is to remain in the current state by default and have a more obscure 'power user' option that could be enabled within the OS itself.

JohnBooty 7y ago

Serious question: why should anybody have to learn how a computer works? I mean, I do it for a living and I'm glad I know. But I don't really know how bridges, or electric guitars, or cars, or genetic engineering, or oil paintings work. It's awfully gatekeeper-y to insist that computers should be these totally wide-open, unsafe spaces. I mean it's almost exactly like saying people should know how to rebuild an engine if they want to drive a car. It's certainly good to know how to rebuild an engine, but surely many people should be able to use cars without knowing that...

longblack 7y ago
I like your car engine analogy; car's have the same level of widespread use as computers, yet I would wager a large percentage of people would struggle to perform much in term of car maintenance. Anecdotally, I know a multitude of people who have no idea how their car engine works, so much so they would not know how to check the oil level. As a further point, drivers are (with edge case exceptions) not kept away or locked down from performing any work on their vehicle, yet in most cases they would still prefer to pass the responsibility on to a trusted professional.
- JohnBooty 7y ago
  It's certainly good to know how a car works, or a computer works. Recently, I fixed a number of small (non-drivetrain) things on my car and I wish I knew more.