3 ms·

“Oregon Trail” generation here. I’m more tech literate than my older and younger family members. But I also made tech my career so I’m not sure if this is a fai

“Oregon Trail” generation here. I’m more tech literate than my older and younger family members. But I also made tech my career so I’m not sure if this is a fair anecdote.

moshmosh 5y ago
Same, same, and same. I think there's a tendency for anyone who halfway gets how computers work to end up in tech, because halfway getting how computers work pays much better than almost anything else that's anywhere near as easy to get into. About the only reason not to is if you can't stand sitting in front of a screen reading and typing arcane crap all day (a sentiment I very much sympathize with). If you're an Excel whiz and kinda understand how to navigate a filesystem and how that relates (and how it doesn't) to what you navigate to in a web browser, then you're not that far from being a Javascript jockey, which pays better than most mid-tier or lower office work, even entry-level. So mid-tier office workers, and others at or below that pay level, are usually not much more than barely competent at using computers, because if they were better they'd rarely stay in those roles. I don't find that younger generations are much more inclined to "get" computers in that way than, at the very least, Gen X and Millennials are/were. And the main thing driving younger kids to learn actually-useful computer skills seem to be the same as before—PC video games & modding. Dunno what will happen if those stop having a unique appeal compared with mobile and console games. Probably universities will have to get used to most of their best CS candidates not having already done half the university's job for them, in self-directed free time from ages 8-18. I do get the sense that a hell of a lot of kids are better at video production and photography than in our generation, but the tools they have for that are so much better, easier to use, and cheaper, and there are more incentives (YouTube and such) for them to at least give it a try, that it'd be surprising if that weren't the case. Smartphones, free YouTube how-tos, free non-terrible video & photo editing software, and much faster computers, completely changed the accessibility of getting hands-on with those things. You can do more experimentation with, say, lighting, in 10 minutes now than you could in an hour with your folks' old tape camcorder.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I spent way too many hours in a darkroom in high school and college. While it was fun, I'd never want to go back to all the time spent messing with chemicals. Video of course was even worse. In fact, I was somewhat into film at the time but the overhead of dealing with heavy tape camcorders and editing was more than I could deal with. I'd definitely have done more if I'd had access to even an iPhone and Final Cut Pro X. Good photography and good video are still hard of course. But so many barriers have been removed.
  - moshmosh 5y ago
    Seriously, the amount of practice and skill-improvement a kid could get in an afternoon of trying out angles, cuts, and shot-movement, just trying to imitate some director or DP they like until they're getting similar results, all on their iPhone, is incredible. Just a little more work and they can post a highlight reel of their practice session, to be viewed by anyone in the world. After a few times doing this, the work might even be looking pretty good, with nothing more than a smartphone for the entire process. Repeat a few afternoons for various other aspects of technique, and you'll have had more and better practical experience at some aspects of production and editing than people who'd worked at it for months or more the 80s or 90s. The learning feedback loop is so tight now. I mean, damn. That's cool.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Oh, and by the way, they can watch a video on YouTube in which someone does a detailed walk through of Tarantino's framing and angle choices in a scene.

“Oregon Trail” generation here. I’m more tech literate than my older and younger family members. But I also made tech my career so I’m not sure if this is a fair anecdote.

moshmosh 5y ago

Same, same, and same. I think there's a tendency for anyone who halfway gets how computers work to end up in tech, because halfway getting how computers work pays much better than almost anything else that's anywhere near as easy to get into. About the only reason not to is if you can't stand sitting in front of a screen reading and typing arcane crap all day (a sentiment I very much sympathize with). If you're an Excel whiz and kinda understand how to navigate a filesystem and how that relates (and how it doesn't) to what you navigate to in a web browser, then you're not that far from being a Javascript jockey, which pays better than most mid-tier or lower office work, even entry-level. So mid-tier office workers, and others at or below that pay level, are usually not much more than barely competent at using computers, because if they were better they'd rarely stay in those roles. I don't find that younger generations are much more inclined to "get" computers in that way than, at the very least, Gen X and Millennials are/were. And the main thing driving younger kids to learn actually-useful computer skills seem to be the same as before—PC video games & modding. Dunno what will happen if those stop having a unique appeal compared with mobile and console games. Probably universities will have to get used to most of their best CS candidates not having already done half the university's job for them, in self-directed free time from ages 8-18. I do get the sense that a hell of a lot of kids are better at video production and photography than in our generation, but the tools they have for that are so much better, easier to use, and cheaper, and there are more incentives (YouTube and such) for them to at least give it a try, that it'd be surprising if that weren't the case. Smartphones, free YouTube how-tos, free non-terrible video & photo editing software, and much faster computers, completely changed the accessibility of getting hands-on with those things. You can do more experimentation with, say, lighting, in 10 minutes now than you could in an hour with your folks' old tape camcorder.

ghaff 5y ago
I spent way too many hours in a darkroom in high school and college. While it was fun, I'd never want to go back to all the time spent messing with chemicals. Video of course was even worse. In fact, I was somewhat into film at the time but the overhead of dealing with heavy tape camcorders and editing was more than I could deal with. I'd definitely have done more if I'd had access to even an iPhone and Final Cut Pro X. Good photography and good video are still hard of course. But so many barriers have been removed.
- moshmosh 5y ago
  Seriously, the amount of practice and skill-improvement a kid could get in an afternoon of trying out angles, cuts, and shot-movement, just trying to imitate some director or DP they like until they're getting similar results, all on their iPhone, is incredible. Just a little more work and they can post a highlight reel of their practice session, to be viewed by anyone in the world. After a few times doing this, the work might even be looking pretty good, with nothing more than a smartphone for the entire process. Repeat a few afternoons for various other aspects of technique, and you'll have had more and better practical experience at some aspects of production and editing than people who'd worked at it for months or more the 80s or 90s. The learning feedback loop is so tight now. I mean, damn. That's cool.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Oh, and by the way, they can watch a video on YouTube in which someone does a detailed walk through of Tarantino's framing and angle choices in a scene.