2 ms·

I don't, but I can sympathize. I used to tinker a lot and explore and experiment on computers. I was excited to learn new tools and apps and systems. I built t

I don't, but I can sympathize. I used to tinker a lot and explore and experiment on computers. I was excited to learn new tools and apps and systems. I built them from scratch and I constantly tweaked them, and therefore they were constantly in a state of flux and disrepair. I'm that guy who never bothered to put the case back on my tower enclosure. But things changed, and my needs changed. I got to a point where my computers are mission-critical for managing my household, and my livelihood. And so I couldn't afford to tinker or to have things breaking. I've also winnowed down my need for apps to the bare minimum. In fact I recently purchased a Chromebook, and its slim profile makes me happy, because I am a man with simple needs. So with a simple network, simple devices and simple apps, things rarely break for me, and I rarely need to delve into a troubleshooting session, or tweak a lot of options trying to get something working. It's a rabbit hole that I know well, and so I can steer clear. I think a lot of people do waste time, though, whether it's gamers and tinkerers who like fixing stuff (and therefore always breaking stuff) or whether it's grandmas and managers who don't know computers, and so they spend far too long confused by simple problems and working with tech support who don't know how to troubleshoot either. Computers were supposed to simplify our lives, and do the heavy lifting of repetitive tasks, and do everything faster, but we've sort of created them in our own image and likeness, so instead, computers are needy, must be fed and watered constantly, and have tantrums at inopportune moments. Welcome to the 21st century.

imiric 3y ago
I get the sentiment that less tinkering causes less things to break, and there's some truth to that, but how do you avoid the "simple" tools you use from breaking? Underneath the apparent simplicity of a Chromebook or an Apple device is a mountain of complexity that can, and does, malfunction. Every time you update their software—which you're pretty much forced to—you run the risk of something not working as expected, or flat out not working. If you've never experienced this then your bar for failure is very low, or you've either not noticed it, or been impacted by it. This is mostly what TFA and the study are talking about. I'm sure that their subjects didn't include technical people who enjoy tinkering, but common users who use their computers as a tool. It's remarkable how often their work is interrupted by something not working properly. I'm actually surprised it's as low as 20%.

imiric 3y ago

I get the sentiment that less tinkering causes less things to break, and there's some truth to that, but how do you avoid the "simple" tools you use from breaking? Underneath the apparent simplicity of a Chromebook or an Apple device is a mountain of complexity that can, and does, malfunction. Every time you update their software—which you're pretty much forced to—you run the risk of something not working as expected, or flat out not working. If you've never experienced this then your bar for failure is very low, or you've either not noticed it, or been impacted by it. This is mostly what TFA and the study are talking about. I'm sure that their subjects didn't include technical people who enjoy tinkering, but common users who use their computers as a tool. It's remarkable how often their work is interrupted by something not working properly. I'm actually surprised it's as low as 20%.