The thing is that computers are useful for so many things that I find even just attempting to define what is "tech literacy" difficult and bound to endless discussion, and well the result is this blog post and the following debate here.

It's like you would like to claim "desktop literacy" for the noble tasks that can be performed on a (e.g. wooden) desktop, traditionally it being let's say copying evangelical scriptures, and are angry against those ignorant young folks that don't give a fuck about the bible but find writing novels cool, and let's not even talk about the peasants that merely use their "desktops" to cook and eat (and in the background you have a pen maker who listens to the copyist rant, with a small smirk)

At this point the vague "tech literacy" term is not useful anymore, and the problem is just that more precise terminology is needed to communicate efficiently.

All of those are heavily algorithmic in nature, so understanding algorithmic complexity makes it easier to understand how and why the software handles the way it does.

For example, joining together many separate 3D objects is extremely slow if one just selects all and does an union, since the algorithm needs to check all pairs of objects for overlaps in 3D space.

That may not be immediately apparent to non-programmers, but to programmers, it will feel like an intuitive consequence of the problem and the inevitabilities of its solution.

How many people are at the intersection of (a) being able to competently use CAD software or specialized software for physics or engineering and (b) being unable to write a simple script?

Literacy isn't about reading all the time, it's about being able to read if you want/need to. Same with computer literacy.

Essentially all the older non-software (i.e. electronic, mechanical, aerospace) engineers I know.