If someone is discussing the concepts with the wrong vocabulary, then that means they are sufficiently important to that person that the should have known about

If someone is discussing the concepts with the wrong vocabulary, then that means they are sufficiently important to that person that the should have known about it. I wouldn't be noticing that many people don't understand the concepts if it were not relevant to these people. It's not like these are particularly deep subjects either, people directly interact with 2 of the 3 every day. They're not buried details, they're frontline human-computer interfaces. P.S. Understanding cars is very similar to understanding computers. There are numerous layers of abstraction in place that allow us to rope off areas of understanding for later. I would argue that there is actually more information to learn about cars than there is computers for a few reasons: 1) cars are jam packed full of computers these days. 2) there are half a dozen engineering and science disciplines involved in cars off the top of my head, and that number is only limited by the number I know the name of. 3) (depending on if we're pulling in computing hardware into the discussion or not..) cars are things built in the real world with imperfect knowledge of all the systems that go into them. You can be sure people a century ago were not paying a ton of attention to fluid dynamics in engine cylinders. You can always dig deeper into what is actually going on. My point is here is that if computers are more complicated than cars, it's not by much. I believe my comparison holds.