6 ms·

After having gone through decades of adopting the "latest and greatest" tech, I've gotten to the point where what I really want is the least-complex thing I can

After having gone through decades of adopting the "latest and greatest" tech, I've gotten to the point where what I really want is the least-complex thing I can find that does the essential job I want done. For a computer, I want something with SeaBIOS, a stripped-down kernel, and a handful of packages from the Debian Stable repository. I want it hackable and repairable -- something like a Framework. Nothing like a MacBook. For a phone, I want something that can run Signal, Fastmail, a music/audiobook player, Syncthing, and Organic Maps, more or less. Minimal connectivity to Cloud services, and nothing about it vying for my attention. Nothing like an iPhone. For a car I want hackable and repairable. Again with minimal complexity. I don't want it spying on me. I don't want computer glitches rendering the car unusable. I want the parking brake attached to a cable that I engage with a lever. I want to be able to shift it into neutral by pressing down on a clutch pedal and pushing a stick. If my 12v battery dies I want the car to be fully functional after a jump. I want a spare tire in the rear hatch with a jack I can use on the roadside. I want to be able to easily fix most things that can go wrong with the car with parts I can find at a common automotive shop or junkyard. Nothing like what an Apple car would have been. Given the number of people on HN with iPhones and Teslas I guess I might be running counter to hacker culture. I don't know. But I'm thinking I might not be the only person around thinking this way about technology these days.

chatmasta 3y ago
I mostly agree with you, but consider that in 50 years, the "least complex thing" might seem much different than it does today.
captn3m0 3y ago
For iPhones, I’ve been meaning to try out Assistive Access as a “minimalist mode”. It gives you a big icon launcher becomes a dumb phone, more or less. https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/assistive-access-iphone/devcd5016d31/ios https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/assistive-access-iphon...
- kls0e 3y ago
  just tried it! excellent tip. thanks!
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Unfortunately it's much more limited than an actual "dumb phone" because of some weird choices Apple made. In particular: 1. You can only receive messages from numbers that are in your contact list. 2. You can only send messages and make phone calls to select numbers that are in your contact list, and which have been additionally whitelisted under Assistive Access. 3. The Settings app (which lets you configure the whitelist) is not available.
- frabcus 3y ago
  That looks amazing - the home screen focus reminds me of Niagara on Android (although that is prettier)
dagmx 3y ago
A lot of people want (as you describe) the “least-complex thing I can find that does the essential job I want done” But what you then go on to describe is the antithesis of other people’s definitions. People want an experience that works out of the box. That they don’t have to think about package managers or maintenance. That’s low complexity for the vast majority of people. That’s why people are going for Apple and Tesla.
- ori_b 3y ago
  > People want an experience that works out of the box. That they don’t have to think about package managers or maintenance. I still have to think about them on the new shinies. It's just harder to understand them.
- Affric 3y ago
  I have always hated how almost everywhere I go I get told “no one can know everything/no one cares how a plain works so long as it works” for me that’s fundamentally untrue. But I have heard it said so many times and seen so many people simply agree with it that I believe that for many many people out there, it is true.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    There’s a difference in ability and desire. Why do a lot of technical people own iPhones and use Mac’s? It’s not because they can’t understand the technology and it’s not because they don’t like to tinker. It’s because they don’t want to carry that constant burden of thought with them. Maybe some do, but a lot of folks like the base state to be one where they can just chill.
    - consp 3y ago
      > It’s because they don’t want to carry that constant burden of thought with them With me it's the thought of how it's going to prevent me from doing what I want because "it's not the Apple way" (but that applies to more than just apple). It's the main reason not to use those.
0_____0 3y ago
nothing wrong with buying a frameworks laptop and a 1996 miata. most folks don't know what a BIOS is, but care if it takes more than a couple days to replace their device. nice thing about apple is you can basically walk in with a damaged device and walk out with its memories and soul ported into a new body.
WanderPanda 3y ago
You’re enumerating all kinds of failure cases and how the most important thing about the product is how fast/easy to rectify them but you should really consider the probability times the effort (plus some risk penalty for increased risk).
_sys49152 3y ago
which is why ill be stuck buying 2004-2008 toyotas for the rest of my life
neycoda 3y ago
What you're looking for is 'Basic Premium'. I got that way after burning out on tech enthusiasm. Now I just want the best I can get of the things I need.
8ig8 3y ago
Don’t forget about car windows with a crank.
- steelframe 3y ago
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but shortly after I relocated in the dead of winter to a place that's further north my driver's side window wouldn't roll back up after I rolled it down. It's not fun trying to transport your family around with a window stuck open in freezing temps. If a crank-based mechanism would have made that less likely to happen, or at least if it would be easier for me to get the window back up with simple tools, I would have been all for that at the time!
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Most failures of windows I've seen are the glass falling off the track or the track getting physically jammed or out of alignment. There's a good chance whatever failure you had a hand crank wouldn't have prevented it. Even when its like "the motor burned out", well what caused the motor to burn out? The lift was way out of alignment and would have been dang hard to turn by hand, and probably would have just broken the gearing.
k12sosse 3y ago
I want physical knobs and buttons to do everything the touch screen does.
- Beijinger 3y ago
  You want a Grenadier. But the price :-(
NicoJuicy 3y ago
I'm inclined to want more mechanical cars again. All the electric tech is raising car prices and blocking the right for repair ( eg. You can fix the LED light, but need a 10 k. Branded diagnose machine to indicate you fixed it). We calculated the prices from an official shop and came to the conclusion that they billed us 150€ for basically a walk to get a 2€ part.
- steelframe 3y ago
  I feel as though a lot of newer EVs include a ton of code complexity just for the sake of having a ton of code complexity. It's as if the culture of "value-add" went into hyperdrive for some of these newer car manufacturers. For me to return to the EV market I would require that I be able to source a third-party battery pack, at the very least. I'd be fine with government regulations to block the cheap packs that catch fire. I just want the option of swapping out the pack on my own terms if I want in the future, including getting next-gen battery tech that can increase range with less volume and weight. I'd also insist that they have a "do not phone home" mode of operation, along with buttons and knobs and a small screen. And a pull-brake. And a charging infrastructure that works. And that I can use with cash.
glitchinc 3y ago
I could not agree with you more. All electronics fail, and all systems reliant on electronics fail. Not all worm gears fail. As someone who has worked in tech my whole life, and who currently runs a technology-centric company, I generally detest the state of technology these days. I have reached a point in my life where I consciously limit my use of technology, and make it a point to steer clear of purchasing and making use of devices and services with "superfluous technology" unless their are no alternatives. Many (if not most) modern technology systems are far too complex to be properly tested, especially when taking into account integrations (via "standard" interfaces) with third party technology systems. As technology systems have become more complex, their reliability as tools to accomplish an intended goal has drastically decreased while the telemetry capabilities of the systems have been drastically improved (without me knowingly realizing any benefits thereof). As such, I have learned to rely on technology less and less as I have aged. There are surely many reasons for the inverse relationship between complexity and reliability of technology systems, but a cursory list of suggested root causes that come to mind include: - use of (necessary, in modern software development) automated test tools; - use of programming languages too-abstracted from technologies employed within the system; - a likely growing percentage of developers lacking a working domain knowledge of the systems they are developing; - the corporate / financial pressure to needlessly upgrade or evolve technology systems--even in the absence of flaws or demand for the upgrade--in the name of maintaining / increasing shareholder value (see also: planned obsolescence, etc.) Two immediate examples of "too much technology" that come to mind, because I have experienced them within the past few days: 1) Bluetooth is soon to be 26 years old, yet my model year 2022 smartphone cannot reliably communicate with my model year 2022 vehicle's head unit via Bluetooth to play music or relay audio during phone calls. I cannot tell you how many point releases of smartphone software (or vehicle head unit software) have been released since I have owned both the phone and the via Bluetooth, but Bluetooth has never worked correctly on any of them. Why? 2) On some recent releases of macOS Sonoma, the OS can read FAT* formatted USB media without issue, while other releases (to include 14.3.1) cannot read FAT* formatted USB media. Regarding 14.3.1: on 14.3, I could read and write to FAT* USB drives just fine, but I could not type an email longer than a couple of lines without the UI overlaying text on top of other text in the email, making the entire text of the email illegible. When 14.3.1 (with the text overlaying issue fixed) was available, I applied the update right away. Now I can write emails without issue, but I cannot read FAT* formatted USB drives. Why?
huytersd 3y ago
Your definition of “least complex” is objectively very complex.
kats 3y ago
Sorry, do you mind if I ask what model of car and laptop do you usually use at the moment.
- steelframe 3y ago
  It seems like a lifelong journey to find and customize your stuff to be exactly what you'd like it to be. Realistically I'll never get "there" without making some pretty big compromises, but the hacker in me enjoys trying. My phone is a Pixel 7a running GrapheneOS. My laptop is a Thinkpad T80s running Debian Stable, and I'm waiting for my Framework 16 to ship. My vehicle for out-of-town trips is a GR Corolla, but for around-town stuff I use a custom steel frame e-bike. When I have the time and energy I try to protect my privacy. For the GR Corolla I followed some steps* that might have done the job, but I can't say for sure. This summer I hope I have time to play with the hardware, up to and including replacing the headunit with something OSS-based. * https://www.grcorollaforum.com/threads/sos-call-disable.2357/ https://www.grcorollaforum.com/threads/sos-call-disable.2357...
petabyt 3y ago
Mechanical components becoming lines of code improved reliability and performance greatly, but at the cost of massively increasing complexity and making modifications impossible unless you are willing to reverse engineer.
amenghra 3y ago
> I might be running counter to hacker culture Isn't hacker culture about being able to hack and repair things? I.e. you aren't running counter to hacker culture. You might be running against the mainstream, but that's all right.
masfoobar 3y ago
Thank you for your comment. I enjoyed reading it. For me -- I like simplicity. A simple computer. A simple phone. A simple car. etc. I am not against technology "that just works" and you dont need to do much... but it comes at a cost, being your freedom (lack of configurations) I am not here to point fingers and anyone. I just like to have control over my technology, or it is relatively easy to repair (or pretty cheap if I pay someone else with more experience to do it) For laptops and desktops, I do not have much negatives about using GNU/Linux. Some people mentions the bad experiences they have but that is not the case for me. I say this for many years, now. For phone... yes, I have an Android. Before that, I had a Firefox phone for 5 years... and I honestly enjoyed it. A bit clunky at times but worked really well. I do keep an eye of OpenSource-esque phones from time to time. I remember the openmoko phone which must have been 10 years ago, now. Today I know about Librem or Pinephones. I would like to move over to one of these babies... but maybe leave it another 5 years. As for my Car, I like Polo, Corsa, Fiesta type Cars. I will leave it there.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  >For me -- I like simplicity. Pretty much for that reason the only piece of tech in the last 15 years that I've genuinely liked is the Kindle (or comparable ereaders). Literally just displays books in a format that feels pretty natural and does almost nothing else.
  - bluebarbet 3y ago
    Imagine the mountain of electronic waste if everyone needs a separate gadget for every task. A screen is a screen. In theory, a single general-purpose computer with a screen is the simplest solution of all. The real problem, as I see it, is that it has become very hard to make a general purpose computer with good UX and decent privacy. All the forces are working against it. But we should not give up trying.
notso411 3y ago
[dead]
acqbu 3y ago
For a phone, I think you want an older Pixel device running GrapheneOS!
scrappyjoe 3y ago
On the subject of electric cars, I would argue that the _components_ in an electric vehicle are far simpler than those in an internal combustion engine. From the wheels, working inwards - 1. Brakes are used less because of regenerative braking, so less wear and tear. 2. Brake vacuum is provided by an electric pump, cheap part to replace. If you use an iBooster you eliminate master and slave cylinders - much less complex. 3. You don't need a gearbox of any kind because you don't have to keep the engine RPM in an optimal torque band - it's all constant torque. 4. Therefore no clutch required. Even if you want to keep a gearbox, you don't need one because an electric motor has so little rotating mass that you can clutches shift. 5. The motor is vastly simpler. No combustion, no timing issues, no fuel delivery issues, vastly less wear and tear, less fluids. 6. Vastly less heat generated means simple, easy to repair coolant system. 7. No gas tank, no fuel lines to block or corrode. 8. Battery is a single unit, if you've got a good BMS, cells are protected so you can replace bad cells. 9. Controlling all of these things need not use zillions of wires which are impossible to trace. Either these components work just fine in failover mode (i.e just give them power and they work) or are simple to control with CANBUS. Canbus is scary because it is unfamiliar. It's generally an eminently hackable system, and you just need to route 2 wires from the CANBUS spine to the component. It's actually waaaay simpler than, say, Ethernet. All in all, I would argue that an electric motor is a vastly better technology to base a _simple, repairable personal transport solution_ on top of. It's just that no EV producer has identified 'repairability' as a market need. [Edit]: formatting
commandersaki 3y ago
These devices all sound nice, but always fall short of something. The big something for me is accessibility.
whackx 3y ago
What you describe are simple systems. Most people confuse simplicity and intuitiveness. The Apple Car or the iPhone are intuitive to use but far from simple, because of the abstraction level. I like simple systems, which are maintainable, because they lack high abstractions.

chatmasta 3y ago

I mostly agree with you, but consider that in 50 years, the "least complex thing" might seem much different than it does today.

captn3m0 3y ago

For iPhones, I’ve been meaning to try out Assistive Access as a “minimalist mode”. It gives you a big icon launcher becomes a dumb phone, more or less. https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/assistive-access-iphone/devcd5016d31/ios https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/assistive-access-iphon...

kls0e 3y ago
just tried it! excellent tip. thanks!
- int_19h 3y ago
  Unfortunately it's much more limited than an actual "dumb phone" because of some weird choices Apple made. In particular: 1. You can only receive messages from numbers that are in your contact list. 2. You can only send messages and make phone calls to select numbers that are in your contact list, and which have been additionally whitelisted under Assistive Access. 3. The Settings app (which lets you configure the whitelist) is not available.
frabcus 3y ago
That looks amazing - the home screen focus reminds me of Niagara on Android (although that is prettier)

dagmx 3y ago

A lot of people want (as you describe) the “least-complex thing I can find that does the essential job I want done” But what you then go on to describe is the antithesis of other people’s definitions. People want an experience that works out of the box. That they don’t have to think about package managers or maintenance. That’s low complexity for the vast majority of people. That’s why people are going for Apple and Tesla.

ori_b 3y ago
> People want an experience that works out of the box. That they don’t have to think about package managers or maintenance. I still have to think about them on the new shinies. It's just harder to understand them.
Affric 3y ago
I have always hated how almost everywhere I go I get told “no one can know everything/no one cares how a plain works so long as it works” for me that’s fundamentally untrue. But I have heard it said so many times and seen so many people simply agree with it that I believe that for many many people out there, it is true.
- dagmx 3y ago
  There’s a difference in ability and desire. Why do a lot of technical people own iPhones and use Mac’s? It’s not because they can’t understand the technology and it’s not because they don’t like to tinker. It’s because they don’t want to carry that constant burden of thought with them. Maybe some do, but a lot of folks like the base state to be one where they can just chill.
  - consp 3y ago
    > It’s because they don’t want to carry that constant burden of thought with them With me it's the thought of how it's going to prevent me from doing what I want because "it's not the Apple way" (but that applies to more than just apple). It's the main reason not to use those.

0_____0 3y ago

nothing wrong with buying a frameworks laptop and a 1996 miata. most folks don't know what a BIOS is, but care if it takes more than a couple days to replace their device. nice thing about apple is you can basically walk in with a damaged device and walk out with its memories and soul ported into a new body.

WanderPanda 3y ago

You’re enumerating all kinds of failure cases and how the most important thing about the product is how fast/easy to rectify them but you should really consider the probability times the effort (plus some risk penalty for increased risk).

_sys49152 3y ago

which is why ill be stuck buying 2004-2008 toyotas for the rest of my life

neycoda 3y ago

What you're looking for is 'Basic Premium'. I got that way after burning out on tech enthusiasm. Now I just want the best I can get of the things I need.

8ig8 3y ago

Don’t forget about car windows with a crank.

steelframe 3y ago
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but shortly after I relocated in the dead of winter to a place that's further north my driver's side window wouldn't roll back up after I rolled it down. It's not fun trying to transport your family around with a window stuck open in freezing temps. If a crank-based mechanism would have made that less likely to happen, or at least if it would be easier for me to get the window back up with simple tools, I would have been all for that at the time!
- vel0city 3y ago
  Most failures of windows I've seen are the glass falling off the track or the track getting physically jammed or out of alignment. There's a good chance whatever failure you had a hand crank wouldn't have prevented it. Even when its like "the motor burned out", well what caused the motor to burn out? The lift was way out of alignment and would have been dang hard to turn by hand, and probably would have just broken the gearing.

k12sosse 3y ago

I want physical knobs and buttons to do everything the touch screen does.

Beijinger 3y ago
You want a Grenadier. But the price :-(

NicoJuicy 3y ago

I'm inclined to want more mechanical cars again. All the electric tech is raising car prices and blocking the right for repair ( eg. You can fix the LED light, but need a 10 k. Branded diagnose machine to indicate you fixed it). We calculated the prices from an official shop and came to the conclusion that they billed us 150€ for basically a walk to get a 2€ part.

steelframe 3y ago
I feel as though a lot of newer EVs include a ton of code complexity just for the sake of having a ton of code complexity. It's as if the culture of "value-add" went into hyperdrive for some of these newer car manufacturers. For me to return to the EV market I would require that I be able to source a third-party battery pack, at the very least. I'd be fine with government regulations to block the cheap packs that catch fire. I just want the option of swapping out the pack on my own terms if I want in the future, including getting next-gen battery tech that can increase range with less volume and weight. I'd also insist that they have a "do not phone home" mode of operation, along with buttons and knobs and a small screen. And a pull-brake. And a charging infrastructure that works. And that I can use with cash.

glitchinc 3y ago

I could not agree with you more. All electronics fail, and all systems reliant on electronics fail. Not all worm gears fail. As someone who has worked in tech my whole life, and who currently runs a technology-centric company, I generally detest the state of technology these days. I have reached a point in my life where I consciously limit my use of technology, and make it a point to steer clear of purchasing and making use of devices and services with "superfluous technology" unless their are no alternatives. Many (if not most) modern technology systems are far too complex to be properly tested, especially when taking into account integrations (via "standard" interfaces) with third party technology systems. As technology systems have become more complex, their reliability as tools to accomplish an intended goal has drastically decreased while the telemetry capabilities of the systems have been drastically improved (without me knowingly realizing any benefits thereof). As such, I have learned to rely on technology less and less as I have aged. There are surely many reasons for the inverse relationship between complexity and reliability of technology systems, but a cursory list of suggested root causes that come to mind include: - use of (necessary, in modern software development) automated test tools; - use of programming languages too-abstracted from technologies employed within the system; - a likely growing percentage of developers lacking a working domain knowledge of the systems they are developing; - the corporate / financial pressure to needlessly upgrade or evolve technology systems--even in the absence of flaws or demand for the upgrade--in the name of maintaining / increasing shareholder value (see also: planned obsolescence, etc.) Two immediate examples of "too much technology" that come to mind, because I have experienced them within the past few days: 1) Bluetooth is soon to be 26 years old, yet my model year 2022 smartphone cannot reliably communicate with my model year 2022 vehicle's head unit via Bluetooth to play music or relay audio during phone calls. I cannot tell you how many point releases of smartphone software (or vehicle head unit software) have been released since I have owned both the phone and the via Bluetooth, but Bluetooth has never worked correctly on any of them. Why? 2) On some recent releases of macOS Sonoma, the OS can read FAT* formatted USB media without issue, while other releases (to include 14.3.1) cannot read FAT* formatted USB media. Regarding 14.3.1: on 14.3, I could read and write to FAT* USB drives just fine, but I could not type an email longer than a couple of lines without the UI overlaying text on top of other text in the email, making the entire text of the email illegible. When 14.3.1 (with the text overlaying issue fixed) was available, I applied the update right away. Now I can write emails without issue, but I cannot read FAT* formatted USB drives. Why?

huytersd 3y ago

Your definition of “least complex” is objectively very complex.

kats 3y ago

Sorry, do you mind if I ask what model of car and laptop do you usually use at the moment.

steelframe 3y ago
It seems like a lifelong journey to find and customize your stuff to be exactly what you'd like it to be. Realistically I'll never get "there" without making some pretty big compromises, but the hacker in me enjoys trying. My phone is a Pixel 7a running GrapheneOS. My laptop is a Thinkpad T80s running Debian Stable, and I'm waiting for my Framework 16 to ship. My vehicle for out-of-town trips is a GR Corolla, but for around-town stuff I use a custom steel frame e-bike. When I have the time and energy I try to protect my privacy. For the GR Corolla I followed some steps* that might have done the job, but I can't say for sure. This summer I hope I have time to play with the hardware, up to and including replacing the headunit with something OSS-based. * https://www.grcorollaforum.com/threads/sos-call-disable.2357/ https://www.grcorollaforum.com/threads/sos-call-disable.2357...

petabyt 3y ago

Mechanical components becoming lines of code improved reliability and performance greatly, but at the cost of massively increasing complexity and making modifications impossible unless you are willing to reverse engineer.

amenghra 3y ago

> I might be running counter to hacker culture Isn't hacker culture about being able to hack and repair things? I.e. you aren't running counter to hacker culture. You might be running against the mainstream, but that's all right.

masfoobar 3y ago

Thank you for your comment. I enjoyed reading it. For me -- I like simplicity. A simple computer. A simple phone. A simple car. etc. I am not against technology "that just works" and you dont need to do much... but it comes at a cost, being your freedom (lack of configurations) I am not here to point fingers and anyone. I just like to have control over my technology, or it is relatively easy to repair (or pretty cheap if I pay someone else with more experience to do it) For laptops and desktops, I do not have much negatives about using GNU/Linux. Some people mentions the bad experiences they have but that is not the case for me. I say this for many years, now. For phone... yes, I have an Android. Before that, I had a Firefox phone for 5 years... and I honestly enjoyed it. A bit clunky at times but worked really well. I do keep an eye of OpenSource-esque phones from time to time. I remember the openmoko phone which must have been 10 years ago, now. Today I know about Librem or Pinephones. I would like to move over to one of these babies... but maybe leave it another 5 years. As for my Car, I like Polo, Corsa, Fiesta type Cars. I will leave it there.

Barrin92 3y ago
>For me -- I like simplicity. Pretty much for that reason the only piece of tech in the last 15 years that I've genuinely liked is the Kindle (or comparable ereaders). Literally just displays books in a format that feels pretty natural and does almost nothing else.
- bluebarbet 3y ago
  Imagine the mountain of electronic waste if everyone needs a separate gadget for every task. A screen is a screen. In theory, a single general-purpose computer with a screen is the simplest solution of all. The real problem, as I see it, is that it has become very hard to make a general purpose computer with good UX and decent privacy. All the forces are working against it. But we should not give up trying.

notso411 3y ago

[dead]

acqbu 3y ago

For a phone, I think you want an older Pixel device running GrapheneOS!

scrappyjoe 3y ago

On the subject of electric cars, I would argue that the _components_ in an electric vehicle are far simpler than those in an internal combustion engine. From the wheels, working inwards - 1. Brakes are used less because of regenerative braking, so less wear and tear. 2. Brake vacuum is provided by an electric pump, cheap part to replace. If you use an iBooster you eliminate master and slave cylinders - much less complex. 3. You don't need a gearbox of any kind because you don't have to keep the engine RPM in an optimal torque band - it's all constant torque. 4. Therefore no clutch required. Even if you want to keep a gearbox, you don't need one because an electric motor has so little rotating mass that you can clutches shift. 5. The motor is vastly simpler. No combustion, no timing issues, no fuel delivery issues, vastly less wear and tear, less fluids. 6. Vastly less heat generated means simple, easy to repair coolant system. 7. No gas tank, no fuel lines to block or corrode. 8. Battery is a single unit, if you've got a good BMS, cells are protected so you can replace bad cells. 9. Controlling all of these things need not use zillions of wires which are impossible to trace. Either these components work just fine in failover mode (i.e just give them power and they work) or are simple to control with CANBUS. Canbus is scary because it is unfamiliar. It's generally an eminently hackable system, and you just need to route 2 wires from the CANBUS spine to the component. It's actually waaaay simpler than, say, Ethernet. All in all, I would argue that an electric motor is a vastly better technology to base a _simple, repairable personal transport solution_ on top of. It's just that no EV producer has identified 'repairability' as a market need. [Edit]: formatting

commandersaki 3y ago

These devices all sound nice, but always fall short of something. The big something for me is accessibility.

whackx 3y ago

What you describe are simple systems. Most people confuse simplicity and intuitiveness. The Apple Car or the iPhone are intuitive to use but far from simple, because of the abstraction level. I like simple systems, which are maintainable, because they lack high abstractions.