5 ms·

a completely different story: when steam engines were replaced with the otto motor and cars became available to the general population, people were able to rep

a completely different story: 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.

ForHackernews 6y ago
> 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. [0] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
- Elv13 6y ago
  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).
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    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.
- michaelgrafl 6y ago
  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.
  - fartcannon 6y ago
    In one sense, yeah, they're the same: they're both just tools. In another sense, computers are closer to pencils and paper - they're the tools you use to design the rest of the tools. And that's something special.
  - mondoshawan 6y ago
    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!
thesuitonym 6y ago
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.
- crooked-v 6y ago
  > that may or may not do what they want to 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.
  - Delk 6y ago
    Cars are also much simpler tools than computers in terms of the variety of things people want to do with them. Car analogies applied to computing tend not to be very good, at least partially for that reason.
  - mondoshawan 6y ago
    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. Are these parts not part of the car?
    - AnonC 6y ago
      Aren’t some of those parts actually computers in the car that don’t work as expected?
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  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).
CivBase 6y ago
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.
- jimsug 6y ago
  This reminds me somewhat of people who aren't particularly skilled at math, or are proud of not being particularly skilled at math. A common refrain is "I'm hopeless with math/numbers". And to be frank, calculators exist, so as long as you know how to get to the answer you need... I don't think I have a problem with it.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Calculators don't do math for you, they do calculations for you.
spiritplumber 6y ago
No, it's terrifying. 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)
- vlunkr 6y ago
  I'm not sure what's terrifying about that. Books can only be used to consume content too.
  - spiritplumber 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalia
  - renfj 6y ago
    Books aren't rapidly replacing something similar that can be used to produce, though.
- yoz-y 6y ago
  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.
  - simple_phrases 6y ago
    There's a difference between a Wacom tablet and a tablet computer.
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      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)
ivanhoe 6y ago
> we don't all need to be a mechanic, a chemist, a doctor and an ITC pro. We don't need to, true, but we can... and it can be fun too... why choose less, turning into mindless content consumers?
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
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!
jcul 6y ago
The article does mention this exact thing in the conclusion.

ForHackernews 6y ago

> 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. [0] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

Elv13 6y ago
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).
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  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.
michaelgrafl 6y ago
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.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  In one sense, yeah, they're the same: they're both just tools. In another sense, computers are closer to pencils and paper - they're the tools you use to design the rest of the tools. And that's something special.
- mondoshawan 6y ago
  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!

thesuitonym 6y ago

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.

crooked-v 6y ago
> that may or may not do what they want to 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.
- Delk 6y ago
  Cars are also much simpler tools than computers in terms of the variety of things people want to do with them. Car analogies applied to computing tend not to be very good, at least partially for that reason.
- mondoshawan 6y ago
  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. Are these parts not part of the car?
  - AnonC 6y ago
    Aren’t some of those parts actually computers in the car that don’t work as expected?
filmgirlcw 6y ago
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).

CivBase 6y ago

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.

jimsug 6y ago
This reminds me somewhat of people who aren't particularly skilled at math, or are proud of not being particularly skilled at math. A common refrain is "I'm hopeless with math/numbers". And to be frank, calculators exist, so as long as you know how to get to the answer you need... I don't think I have a problem with it.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Calculators don't do math for you, they do calculations for you.

spiritplumber 6y ago

No, it's terrifying. 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)

vlunkr 6y ago
I'm not sure what's terrifying about that. Books can only be used to consume content too.
- spiritplumber 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalia
- renfj 6y ago
  Books aren't rapidly replacing something similar that can be used to produce, though.
yoz-y 6y ago
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.
- simple_phrases 6y ago
  There's a difference between a Wacom tablet and a tablet computer.
  - yoz-y 6y ago
    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)

ivanhoe 6y ago

> we don't all need to be a mechanic, a chemist, a doctor and an ITC pro. We don't need to, true, but we can... and it can be fun too... why choose less, turning into mindless content consumers?

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

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!

jcul 6y ago

The article does mention this exact thing in the conclusion.