> I'm sure that the futuristic lay-person will have a better basal understanding of technology and how it's made.

I feel like we actively discourage people from having an understanding of technology for fear that they will understand it and complain about it and/or be in a better position to judge the quality of alternatives to our products. As a result, it seems like more people understood basic computer operation and architecture 30 years ago than they do today, but maybe I'm in a weird bubble. I'd think with the opportunities for the far more opaque operations and algorithms that deep learning has given us, people will understand even less about computers in the future.

University professors in recent years have been finding themselves shocked that students don't understand how file systems work[1]. Additionally I recall hearing a teacher say that they were trying to teach something in a computer lab, and none of the students knew how to work a windowing system or multitask, and they only operated by having every program maximized and using one at a time, likely because it's the computing paradigm they grew up on, using smartphones and tablets.

I think the idiot-proofing of modern computing is only making people less aware of how computers work. Think of how many 20-something programmers got into programming from learning how to make Minecraft mods. Or even just learning to install a mod in the old Java version of Minecraft or any other PC game, where you had to dig into weirdly-named folders, copy-paste files into various directories, maybe modify a data file here and there. Kids growing up on the iPhone version of Minecraft are never being exposed to the basics of how their device works.

https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-direc...

I say it like I'm sure, but honestly I worry about this. It's possible we achieved such a technological peak that future generations won't be able to understand the basics; only the simplifications, leading to the premise of Idiocracy.

That being said, we've always built knowledge on top of the backs of others and never really had to deal with supporting its weight without necessarily knowing the basics. It would really make for an interesting case study if it led to the collapse of society.

> It's possible we achieved such a technological peak that future generations won't be able to understand the basics

I don't think it's this, and I don't think programming is so hard (it's the business logic that is hard when you have to specify it exactingly, to reference the thread.) I think that the manufacturers of the various computers we use make it unbelievably difficult and scary to touch anything, and cast quite a bit of suspicion on you for even wanting to change anything.

Anecdotally, most kids I know only interact with devices that feature strong guard rails like phones and tablets.

Those kids are generally more ignorant of how software systems work than someone who grew in the 2000s.

Exactly! I was going to comment on the same phenomena.

We now have a "digital native" generation coming of age for whom the only thing they have known is a ubiquitous internet. We might expect that they would be more intimately familiar with the workings of the technology that has surrounded them than we could ever be.

Yet the opposite seems true, and I think you've put your finger on a primary reason — they've only interacted with devices that are basically appliances — you turn it on and use the app, but it is very difficult to get inside either the hardware or software. So, it just becomes another box that either works or doesn't.

It is not dissimilar to the generations of people who grew up with automobiles. the more "user friendly" they technology gets, the fewer people even understand what goes on 'under the hood'. If you don't need to understand how to change a tire or change the oil, or check the valve backlash, because these are rare events, few people even have a clue how to do it, unless someone took a special effort to teach them and they took a special effort to learn.

Kind of a sad paradox.

You saw the same with cars. Back in say 1950, most car owners would know how to do basic maintenance and repairs, both because the cars was mechanically simpler, but also less reliable. With higher reliability and more complex cars, that is no longer the case. Now the same thing is happening with computers.

Totally agree. I've been working on a programming language for UI designers, but it's been years and I doubt I'll ever release it at this point. The idea was to offer a syntax that conforms to their vocabulary and mental models. So if you were designing a button:

  elements
    shape Wrapper
      text Label

  style Wrapper
    fill: blue

  style Label
    content: Click Me
    fill: white

edit: no harm in sharing the demo page that I never released. Warning - it's very broken. But it kinda works: https://matry.design/demo