> 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

> 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.