I think there are a couple of things wrong with this comment and analogy. Its not clear the author is demanding 'from first principle'. Second, not everybody

I think there are a couple of things wrong with this comment and analogy. Its not clear the author is demanding 'from first principle'. Second, not everybody in university needs the knowledge of flight or the ability to do it themselves - and there are alternatives to flight. Finally, there is a upfront and physical limits to what can be done to the process of flying. Computing and the framework to think about them are endlessly malleable (and applicable). If I take some of the BS being sold today and transplant them back into the aviation metaphor i can only describe it as a donkey ride being sold as flight. So many customer don't have the knowledge to tell the difference. What resonates with me here (and why i don't like this comparison) is what i believe are the ingredients critical to progress. That is: Only when we've figured out how to make something simple can we build on those foundations and take huge leaps forward. There is a limit to how far or high we go when things get too complex. Similar to the idea of technical debt but at the scale of humanity. Tragically we're very bad at recognizing those eureka moments in history when things became an order more simple because naturally we look a back and assume they're obvious.