Abstractions are comfortable, but they might reduce the number of techie teenagers like OP in the future, and that worries me a lot
He asked what I was doing and I said, “making a website”. He asked, reasonably, how do you do that?
Not wanting to get into details I said “it’s just writing some files that chrome can then read”. He asked, “what’s a file”?
I told him, but I was floored. He’s not every kid, but it’s had me thinking about how younger folks (I’m 38) will see computers.
Does it include bundles of files?
What metadata does it include?
Can it exist in more than one place? When a file is opened, is the file what is in processor and cache/RAM or what gets serialized to some persistent media?
Metaphorically, is a file a sheet of paper or folded tan cardstock that holds many sheets of paper?
Is a file unitary or can it contain other files? Is a directory a file? Is a link? Is a device a file?
Is defining something as an "abstraction" the same as saying you can't provide a definition?
Since you are a driver worker, do you consider something a file before it is written to a filesystem?
If you're not used to thinking in terms of files, it just looks like a list of your most recent documents, with a search bar to find anything else.
Source: was until recently a classroom teacher for 7-10 year olds.
As for attachments on emails, they don't (even for a 100% online highschool). To turn in a paper they can just hit "share" and select their teacher.
Files and filesystems are almost dead to them. There is a little hope... My son googled to learn why a game was going slow and answers indicated he should delete the temp files. That was his first experience needing the file explorer.
As someone who grew up with DOS and turned in CS homework on a floppy disk, it is almost hard to watch.
(Cue Doctorow links to enshittification and war on general purpose computering.)
It's a whole different thing to use an abstraction in order to make something understandable and to just handwave everything technical about it. It's not just a different thing.
Our abstractions are out of date.
I managed my own file system by writing down tape counter numbers on the cardboard cover of the cassette tape.
I'm not saying being a sadist and give the kid a second hand laptop with *BSD because then the kid will want nothing to do with computers, especially if the laptop is cheap and doesn't have a working driver support (This is where Linux is better from my personal experience).
This is also why I like HTML, I got a free internet CD with Netscape Navigator in 1996 when I was 12 and the three working examples (two with Netscape Navigator and one was a html email with Netscape Mail and News client) I had, I was able to play around with and create and learn basic HTML until I got a modem in 1998.
It's plausible that parents may just want their children to enjoy some leisure? To not feel like every experience in childhood should be preparation for labour?
"Hey I just got the new counterstrike!"
"Oh that's awesome! I have that too! We should play sometime!"
"Yea what's your PS5 handle?"
"My what?"
"You don't have a PS5?"
"Nah I have a PC"
and yea.....
That is my anecdotal experience though, and it was always bolstered by the benefits of PC gaming - cheaper games, ample mods, lots of sales, and the biggest game library of any platform. Plus better performance. And I could text chat on my keyboard while playing Quake 3 back then haha. Sadly text chat in games has died off as an art, in favor of voice chat and all the problems voice chat comes with. lol.
Edit: And of course, the PC is a tool, the game console is just a dumb appliance.
When I was young Minecraft forcefully evangelized my friend group, which had previously been more nintendo/xbox, into PC gamers. The origins of a lot of my current interests and career go back to the initial questions of: Why is minecraft running at low FPS? How do I set up a minecraft server? It's a little different nowadays, when some of the biggest multiplayer titles are cross-platform.
I never had much time for consoles and I don’t feel like I missed out on much. Popular games come and go. The joy of doing whatever I can imagine with my PC is more than enough consolation.
Actually, playing video games is an activity that let you practice real-time thinking. Other activities with real-time thinking include music instruments, sports and social interactions. By real-time thinking, I mean an activity that requires you to think and act within short timelapses. It appears also that activities involving real-time thinking can be quite fun, and few course in schools involve real-time thinking.
Now, learning new languages like html or how to fine-tune LLM can be quite fun. Learning how to draw nice pictures, or how to write nice books can be quite fun too. It's nice to let children explore different activities (or free internet CD if we speak about 1996) so that they can find the ones that resonate with their inner motivations.
But you know what got me interested in computers to begin with? My Super Nintendo (and I guess my NES before that). So I rebuke the idea that video game consoles don’t teach transferable skills (what the fuck that is supposed to mean) and that they don’t unlock wonder and excitement about technology in lots and lots of people, especially kids.
Computer file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_file
File system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_system
The kid at least asks questions!
IT parents show their kids what an OS is, what a File Explorer is, etc. Perhaps it's useless, but it sheds a light on that's behind those curtains, and kids start understanding the mechanics of 'stuff'.
Then again, a Gen Z software developer at the company I work at was confused on how to download a torrent (not that it matters but the contents of the torrent were legal.) That was at least a bit of a shock for me, as it's difficult for me to imagine someone getting into tech without having gone through the usual piracy phase (that phase lasting shorter or longer depending on the person.)
What’s going to kill billions is the lack of industrialized farming productivity, but you don’t expect every individual to know how to resolve that
It will certainly switch diets and most probably cause hunger and malnutrition for some time. But we can support billions of people, given the right diets. We cannot support billions of people's mcnuggets, beef burgers or cornflakes with milk. About a third of my food comes from stuff I make, grow and harvest myself. I can up that, if I need, but preparing, growing and harvesting are a hobby, not a full-time endeavor. I'm certain I can't up it to 100%. Maybe not even 50%. But some neighbor, friends and family can help out (and I them) and I'm certain with some ~100 people we could be self-sufficient. Sober, sure. But not dead.
(I would die from lack of insulin within months, though. TII. So I am aware of how dependent on industry and high tech I am)
1/3rd of value or flavour is relatively easy. 1/3rd of protein or calories is a lot harder.
Need those mechanized 2000ac farms growing corn, canola or wheat to supplement the homegrown tomatoes/potatoes/peppers/herbs/apples. But it’s impressive what can be done with a somewhat small backyard in terms of value/flavour and not a lot of effort.
Depends on the local deer population.
Only slightly kidding. They reproduce quickly and are currently plentiful. Overabundant, even, in the central US.
Get something else to do the work can accomplish a lot. As could fishing depending on where you are.
My tiny lot brought me all the potatoes, corn, beans and pumpkin I need and some more. Our five walnut trees, shared with 12+ households, produce some more protein.
I obviously still buy rice and a lot of wheat and rye meal to bake my bread and pizza and to make pasta.
My point was that I don't need the large industrialized food industry to feed myself. My point was not that I can do without a society with specialized and efficient food production.
If that link in our global industrial chain breaks, a lot of people will die. We can, of course, still grow food, but not anywhere near as much and it will take a lot more care and attention to not deplete all available soil in a generation or two.
In a hypothetical apocalyptic scenario, we might lose a lot of institutional knowledge about agriculture. It's not hard to imagine some average joes trying to farm the wrong way and accidentally starting another Dust Bowl. After all, that's how it happened the first time.
Feeding 8 billion people is so, so much more complicated than just putting some plants in the ground. That we can do it at all is an absolute miracle of technology. We simply could not do it with only naturally available resources. Not by a long shot.
If everyone stops eating meat, and starts eating the proteins themselves, we win some 1000% to 25000% (sources range from 10 to 25x the proteins in/output when producing meat). Meat is just a terribly inefficient way to produce proteins. (Edit: to be clear, "meat" differs a lot: chicken apparently being rather efficient, more even than cheese, beef being amongst the worst).
And if then the resulting food sources are grown efficient, and all, or a lot of waste can be eliminated by shortening supply chains, sourcing JIT (no avocado's in winter in Europe, no tomatoes in snow), I'm pretty sure we'll get a long way.
But, sure. If some rich countries keep demanding giant portions of global protein in e.g. soybeans and corn to feed cattle to make burgers for 7 meals a week, then certainly: people in countries who cannot afford to compete with the soy-prices will starve.
We’ve settled on a system of markets to deal with scarcity. I believe the 1,000% to 25,000% win might have some losers you’re not telling me about.
And, no surprise, this isn't a free market at all. At least in Europe, meat, dairy (and on lesser extent crops) are heavily subsidised.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-... has a quick overview. My numbers aren't wrong, but, as always, they do need context (i.e. not all input is currently human consumable. Oos, many input is grass, which is rather ineffective land-use, i.e. the same km² could produce a multitude of human edible foods)
When i'll leave for family home later, i'll take my laptop with me. My family is big, so the chances are high that i'll need to run some ADB or photorec on a SD card. I hate it[1]. There is some knowledge/reliability deficit with computers that houses/heatings/food aquisition dont have.
There is something to be said about the dead simple ways of things for sure, and all depending on object/item but a "sweet spot" where something is pretty darn efficient yet not overly complex.
Our endless forwards towards "the most efficient" everything always carries consequences. People / society included.
At our current rate of consolidation and specialization we're going to get to the point where so few people know how to do particular high tech things we may be at risk of someone taking those people out and leaving a massive capability hole across multiple industries.
Or just burnout, changing jobs or them leaving tech alltogether. I'd argue that many companies are already incapable of keeping their tech stack running as intended due to knowledge deficits.
i keep thinking about how we don't actually need 95% of the code running at my job to actually accomplish my company's goals. it's insane how we just kept going with the flow while features and maintenance effort exploded.
that said, anyone know how well the BSD's work as a desktop operating system? mostly worried about hardware i guess, since it's already an issue on linux from time to time. but man the linux ecosystem, while wonderful, suffers from massive complexity too, or at least it looks more and more like it the longer i use it.
Plant seeds
Water
Sunlight
Pick weeds
Wait
Growing food is much harder than that.
Growing a few tomatoes or something is easy. But growing enough food to sustain yourself and your family is much more involved and requires a lot of training and experience.
Most people could likely do it. But it would take them 3-5 years of failures before they could reliably grow enough food for themselves. Probably more on the scale of a whole family.
Besides plants, you could have animals, and get milk and meat from them. Chickens for eggs and meat too.
It doesn't take too much land for it in my opinion. And if you live in a community that does that sort of thing, you could trade meat for tomatoes, and vice versa, or whatever, without relying on megacorps to give you your calories
Localism is the way
[1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h...
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+land+is+needed+to+f...
None of them I found credibly suggested less than an acre per person.
Check out the famous book, “Five Acres And Independence”. That was the basic size of a family farm in the USA a hundred years ago.
No, those abstractions are invisible.
Most teenagers simply don't understand that a phone and a tablet and a desktop and a laptop and a cloud server are all computers. They don't understand that an app and a web page and that thing you install on a desktop are all programs.
As soon as you educate them such that those abstractions become visible, the questions start to flow naturally.
“Take their phones away and get ‘em on Windows 98.”
That seems unnecessarily cruel though.
His father, my son, earns a pretty good living writing code (and now managing a group that does this) and should be highly motivated to assist with motivation.
I gave my granddaughter (strictly speaking, my wife's grand daughter, but she calls me granddad and always has. She also now has a sister) a laptop running Ubuntu at the start of the first covid lock down in the UK.
She still uses it. Mostly to watch crap on Youtube, I gather, but who am I to judge? It is tethered to my home router via OpenVPN and I patch it from time to time. I have an ISO27000 registration to keep on top of 8)
That laptop was a customer cast off, destined for the skip.
The entry barrier got so much lower with learning overall.
Humans just don't care in avg how shit works.
They’re not marketed as a computer.