4 ms·

> When it comes down to the meat and potatoes, they do not know jack shit. Don't forget to tell the kids to get off your lawn after you're done shaking your fi

> When it comes down to the meat and potatoes, they do not know jack shit. Don't forget to tell the kids to get off your lawn after you're done shaking your fist at that cloud. I find it pretty difficult to believe that, in the age of universal instant access to technology information at every level of abstraction, "kids these days" are somehow less knowledgeable about computers than they were in the author's glory days of, presumably, the early-to-mid 80's - "I grew up with the 286, 386, 486 and all the other x86’es." If I had to, I'd bet that just as many (or just as few, depending on your perspective) "kids" get their hands dirty (as it were) with the guts of computing as ever have - and having written this out, my assertion sounds absurdly conservative. How is it possible that more kids don't know more?

AussieWog93 5y ago
I'm a late millennial, born in 93. I've met a few of the vintage computing nerds in my travels, and am constantly impressed by the depth of their knowledge. I wouldn't say that young people are bad at _using_ a computer, or even building/servicing them, but we don't understand the technology in the same way the older generation had to. "Computing" just isn't a hobby the way it used to be.
- carbonguy 5y ago
  > I've met a few of the vintage computing nerds in my travels, and am constantly impressed by the depth of their knowledge. Sure, I've met a few greybeards too, and I'm happy to agree that they have tremendous depth of knowledge about computing that most of us millennials (myself included) lack. But keep in mind that they have a depth of knowledge about computing that most of their generational peers lack as well! Additionally, your statement that "we don't understand the technology in the same way the older generation had to" is just as true if you reverse it: the older generation doesn't understand the technology in the same way WE have to. For my part, I find it pretty difficult to look at the obvious technical aptitude of somebody like, say, Alyssa Rosenzweig or Mike Stewart - and then conclude that the younger generation doesn't "understand the technology." Perhaps the problem here is that we're trying to compare multiple unknowns. What counts as "impressive depth of knowledge" for a generation? Is there anything objective one could use to say "actually yes, this generation really does know less than that one?" Because to me it sounds like the argument being made is "the fact that they don't understand what we went through is proof they know less than us" - not that they know differently but that they know less - and I don't buy that argument.

AussieWog93 5y ago

I'm a late millennial, born in 93. I've met a few of the vintage computing nerds in my travels, and am constantly impressed by the depth of their knowledge. I wouldn't say that young people are bad at _using_ a computer, or even building/servicing them, but we don't understand the technology in the same way the older generation had to. "Computing" just isn't a hobby the way it used to be.

carbonguy 5y ago
> I've met a few of the vintage computing nerds in my travels, and am constantly impressed by the depth of their knowledge. Sure, I've met a few greybeards too, and I'm happy to agree that they have tremendous depth of knowledge about computing that most of us millennials (myself included) lack. But keep in mind that they have a depth of knowledge about computing that most of their generational peers lack as well! Additionally, your statement that "we don't understand the technology in the same way the older generation had to" is just as true if you reverse it: the older generation doesn't understand the technology in the same way WE have to. For my part, I find it pretty difficult to look at the obvious technical aptitude of somebody like, say, Alyssa Rosenzweig or Mike Stewart - and then conclude that the younger generation doesn't "understand the technology." Perhaps the problem here is that we're trying to compare multiple unknowns. What counts as "impressive depth of knowledge" for a generation? Is there anything objective one could use to say "actually yes, this generation really does know less than that one?" Because to me it sounds like the argument being made is "the fact that they don't understand what we went through is proof they know less than us" - not that they know differently but that they know less - and I don't buy that argument.