[jperras]

> Humans have always had a tendency to develop a deep understanding of their tools, and even to refine them to better suit their needs.

Many people in North America use a microwave every day. Does that mean they have or want a deep understanding of magnetrons? Likely not. Of course, this is because microwaves generally just work as expected. But I can't imagine a scenario where microwave home repair would be a thing that people would be okay with if they were unreliable.

[idle_zealot]

If my job or hobbies required me to make frequent use of a microwave oven, to the point that its clunky interface became an issue for me, I imagine I would develop an operational understanding of magnetrons. That is, what they are good at heating, the shape of their heating effect, how best to place and prepare items for heating, and what parameters can be set to control their behavior, though I may lack a detailed knowledge of the physics involved. At this point it would be reasonable for me to want to configure my microwave, alter default settings, or add button behaviors to speed up my frequent use. I don't expect everyone to become proficient with every tool they interact with in any capacity. I do expect them to be able to grow proficient with tools that they use frequently and that matter to them on a professional or personal level.

[kjellsbells]

I used to think to this too, but I'm coming around to the idea that it was a useful idea only in the period when software was special, and used by a small number of people, and not extremely ordinary, and ubiquitous.

There's a different kind of high stakes involved when your software is used by (say) scientists in the defense industry to when your software is used by hundreds of thousands of fast food workers at mcdonalds. In the latter case, proficiency is useful but modifiability is not. So then the discussion needs to move to more human factors like discoverability, optimization of the fast path through the users' most frequent operations, and speed.

[crq-yml]

There's a corresponding objection to the idea of fast-food software, though, which is that the world doesn't have to be one-size-fits-all, and in fact we may be near or past a peak era for that approach to software: while everyone still wants and uses manufactured goods, the value chains are increasingly able to incorporate some kind of customization element and deliver services to meet precise definitions.

We know that it's more important to get right answers than fast answers, but the question of whether rightness needs to be shrinkwrapped is inconclusive and subject to the "bundling vs unbundling" innovation dynamic: there are a lot of scenarios where local agency is prioritized, e.g., US ground forces rely on being able to coordinate comms and intel well to achieve objectives within broad parameters, in a bottom-up fashion. That kind of approach does mean there's heavy standardization of specific techniques and technologies, but it's done to enable flexibility in other respects.

[floating-io]

On the other hand, the buttons on my microwave don't move around six times a year. It doesn't interrupt my cooking to show me ads, either...

[fiddlerwoaroof]

Yet

[benj111]

If I use a piece of software, I tend to learn the shortcuts, and set things up to make my life easier. I don't start reprogramming excel though.

That, to me, is the point being made.

Fwiw my microwave has about 20 buttons, I only know how to change power, time and start.