[angleofrepose]

It's been a little while since I've heard this one, but if there's one thing that I remember hitting me is that the same language used by the interviewer is used today about privacy, end user programming and any other more powerful technology, programming language or paradigm. It seems that as an culture we're always able to go so far, but not all the way. We see the path between start and end, there's no genius needed for the last push, but after so much progress we reduce ambition towards the end goal and instead develop arguments against continuing.

At some point we just don't think people need help with paper based tasks, "look around you, it's how everything is done" yet here we are with the PC 40 years later. And people look around and think that there is no chance everyone could be a programmer "look around you, they're all consumers, they couldn't understand how to make the computer do what they like". In 40 years there's no doubt this viewpoint will be wrong, but the popular opinion on the matter can't see that future.

See Bret Victors history of computing. The biggest adversary we have to overcome towards progress is the mainstream experts of our own field.

We have apps which seem to be like starting from scratch every time, which can't have abilities known by all because they aren't prepackaged by the devs ahead of time. Every app reinvents a minimal subset of sorting and search. If you have a better idea or a different connection you want to make its just not possible in the app.

Stop pretending that debilitating users is actually good for them in the silly word games we play. Give users power.

[anotherhue]

> The biggest adversary we have to overcome towards progress is the mainstream experts of our own field.

“Science advances one funeral at a time.” - Max Planck (Apparently)

[angleofrepose]

This Idea Must Die is an interesting take on that concept.

[danbolt]

I feel like we don't give tools like Microsoft Excel, Game Maker, Photoshop, or the web enough credit for the ability they empower users of computers. Without any formal training or education, they're able to use computers to their ends.

[konjin]

Give Excel to an uncontacted tribe and see how well they go with it.

That we assume reading, numeracy and fine motor skills which until 5 centuries ago were the preserve of less than 1% of the population in the West are not part of formal education or training should tell you all you need to know about how much cultural knowledge we assume people need to have in their daily life to function at the level of a 10 year old.

That 4 years to learn to read is considered normal but reading a 100 page manual is considered unreasonable shows us how much popular culture is lagging behind our tools. Given how technocentric our culture is, this is a situation as ridiculous as Mongols complaining that they need to learn to ride horses.

[danbolt]

oh ok

[webwanderings]

Good for the interviewer for making counter arrangements at that time. Some of the things he said are still true: we still have to come up with categories in our heads. This is true regardless of advancements in ML.

[angleofrepose]

Good point! I might give it another listen. I remember it being an interesting respectful conversation with no ground given on either side. Hence the title, I suppose.

[himinlomax]

> there is no chance everyone could be a programmer

There is no chance, even if by "everyone" you just meant "a majority". It's intellectually challenging, just for one.

[jstanley]

Reading and writing is intellectually challenging. Everyone can do it now, because we make sure to teach them to do it, and because it's necessary to live in modern society.

[himinlomax]

Almost anyone can walk, not everyone can climb mount Everest, or even a much smaller mountain face. Bad analogies are bad.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Are you seriously trying to claim that programming, of any useful sort, is so hard that only really smart people, presumably like yourself, can do it? Christ. I really hope the software development industry gets its ego kicked in really hard in the near future so everything can stop sucking because of elitist asshats.

[himinlomax]

Well on one hand, it could be my massive ego, and on the other it could be the truth.

You're the one arguing on the basis of value. I don't. Let me just ask you this; do you think that being a good enough finance trader requires a high IQ? I'm pretty sure of it, and I'm also of the opinion that what they're applying their smarts to is a net negative for society as a whole.

Another question, have you read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate?

[angleofrepose]

I think the other two comments make good points. There is every chance that everyone will learn to use a small set of fundamentally composable digital tools in the future. That's programming. I think "intellectually challenging" just means poorly explained or resulting from poor access. Anyone can program, it's just artificially hard to do it today.

[himinlomax]

> There is every chance that everyone will learn to use a small set of fundamentally composable digital tools in the future. That's programming

That's not, unless you stretch the meaning of the word far into meaningless. But if you insist on doing so, then yes, most people should be able to "compose digital tools" for a small enough number of digital tools and a wide enough meaning of "compose." Although, on second thought, it appears so many people had issues with "programming a VCR" back in the day, and that wasn't anywhere close to my meaning of "programming."

So let me rephrase it, "there is no chance everyone or even majority could become a minimally proficient user of a minimally useful programming language for novel tasks beyond a sequential list of actions."

[dustingetz]

Imagine if "everyone" was literate, what a world that would be /s

[himinlomax]

Is being able to read at the minimum level comparable to programming?

Do you seriously expect 99% of the population to be able to understand something as simple as the demonstration of Euclid's theorem? And yet any programming is more complicated than that, and more analogous.