Ultimately I feel we fixate on every kid knowing computers at some enthusiast level for no reason.
Calling a level of knowledge “enthusiast” is super subjective and I think the author is arguing that bar should be higher. Being able to “use” a computer (IMO and the author’s) should include things like connecting it to a network, reading error messages, following basic instructions, and knowing what basic hardware components do.
Cars are a great example because most people take their car into a tire shop instead of doing it themselves.
Drivers should know how to deal with a flat and check their oil. A lot of people don’t, but they should.
Most people buy food instead of growing or butchering it themselves.
People should know how to cook a decent meal from ingredients. A lot of people don’t, but they should.
All the users that say shit like “make it work” for tools they use every day of their lives are under-educated IMO and should want to learn more about those tools and develop their skills further to make their daily lives easier. I don’t really get why people don’t.
I feel like he addresses this quite well in the conclusion. In regards to cars, “this is not a new phenomenon” and admits to his reliance on salesmen and mechanics.
Ultimately, he’s asking that the people who make decisions about how our world is shaped have some knowledge about the things that are going to shape the world. And that essential issue is still unaddressed. Remind me, how many years ago was it that US Congress was asking Google why the bad articles show up when you search their name?
Oh, and our car-centric society in the US largely sucks. That may or may not have anything to do with our general understanding of a motor, but maybe it’s worth considering how much thought has really gone into the implications of these massively affecting technologies.