Almost everything you're talking about boils down to this. Why should anybody care? Why should a person who uses the internet to look at pictures of cats or book a flight care about the difference between IE / Mozilla / Chrome / etc. when they all accomplish the same thing to this person? The same thing goes for your search engine example, if you're using Bing to find Google so that you can find out how to upload pictures from your phone to your computer what's it matter if it takes an extra 30 seconds to accomplish that as opposed to setting Google as their browsers homepage? What need of the user is being filled by this education? It's stuff that might provoke a "huh, that's neat" response but unless you're convincing someone that this is something that will directly and tangibly help them in an area of need then I don't think there's too much a person can do....and don't seem to care...
That's a theory on education I'm not familiar with but it makes sense. Unfortunately it's not always enough though. I'm always amazed when college educated friends of mine spout some ridiculous claims and, when asked where they sourced the info listed several bullshit .orgs as if the fact it wasn't a .com granted some infallible legitimacy. So then does that stem from the same lack of tech literacy that you've mentioned in the original post or is it a failing on the part of education to instill sufficient skepticism?
Sounds pretty good to me. I see what you're saying. know I have a thought in here somewhere, I just need to flush it out a bit more.
Here's the thought: Not enough effort has been made to debunk the 'chemtrails' of computing. I'll admit it - I knew academically that both iPhones and Android devices were little Unix boxes in pretty touch GUIs but it wasn't until jailbreaking a Nexus 6 and seeing the steady stream of command-line bullshit from the bootloader that I really grokked it. From one side, it's a shame that people don't have the motivation or interest to peek under the hood. On the other side, it's a shame that designers don't have the motivation or interest to close the hood with latches instead of explosive bolts.
I think fear probably plays a significant role on both ends. On the consumer side of thing, there is a fear of loss. A lot of people don't want to even mess with their own oil, headlights, etc. for fear of messing up their cars. A lot of people don't have the luxury of extra cash lying around to pay to fix any of their mistakes nor a second car to tool around in when their first car gets messed up. As a result, they opt for better safe than sorry. I know similarly, for computers, my first foray into Linux was on a busted ass computer that was so janky, even if I did fuck something up, I wasn't at a loss because the computer was practically a paperweight as it was. I was already looking at buying another computer dead in the face so I didn't really have anything to lose at that point. It wasn't until I had nothing to be afraid of that I tried to do something new. As for designers and engineers, I think they're afraid that if they make their products too easy to work with, they're risking their company's assets. "Hey ho. If we make this cell phone easy to jail break, Apple could lose revenue and I could lose my job for not making a more locked down system. Better safe than sorry, let's put this shit behind a brick wall."
Had a friend ask me about "carbureted bikes" the other day. Everything he'd ever owned was fuel-injected and he was worried he'd be incapable of keeping a carbureted Ducati running. Then he asked about valve lash. Apparently he'd put a combined 100k on no less than 4 Japanese crotch rockets without ever once adjusting valve lash. I guess he rode them until they weren't as zippy as they used to be, sold them and bought another. He was legitimately considering a Harley because he was afraid of the responsibility of learning to do his own valve lash.
Well, I don't know much about bikes, but I do know that carbureted engines for cars do need a little more care to keep them running smoothly, especially if you're running a multi-carb setup. If I had to guess, I'd say the same is probably true for bikes. That said, while the task of setting valve lash is relatively straightforward, I can understand why he'd be uncomfortable doing it. I'm gonna confess something here. Know why I own an FR-S? I mean, besides the fact that it's fun. I don't have to do jack shit with it. I just drive it, take it to the dealer for its scheduled maintenance, and stay worry free. The lack of worry really adds to my enjoyment of the car and I'm confident enough in it that it's my daily driver. When I had my El Camino on the other hand, that thing broke down every single month. It sat not running more often than not. Either I knew how to fix it and didn't have the money, or I had the money but didn't know what to do. Even though it wasn't my DD and I loved the hell out of that car, it was a frustrating experience. Now that I'm a bit older, and have money to spare, I'm willing to look at another GM G-Body again when I have space for one. It kind of circles back to the whole fear thing we talked about. For those interested in Valve Lash, Summit Racing has a great tutorial on how to adjust for it . . .
Bike carbs are a whole 'nuther animal. Variable venturi, auto-compensating for pressure. Fewer parts, less adjustability... and then you get to balance 'em. But hey- you have to balance fuel injection, too. On the plus side, everything else you can plug it into the 'puter. Bike valve lash is a whole 'nuther animal too. no rocker arms. Here's a great guide for the KLR not because you'll ever have one, but because it introduced me to the phrase "abyss towels."
I lawled a little. I'll be damned though, if that's not an intimidating number of steps there.This is a part of the procedure where you can't be careful enough. A wrong move here that allows a cap locator or screw to fall down into the engine has made men go crazy, women faint, and children cry. (Undocumented information.)
Chemtrails...I've had multiple people over the past year or so ask me about them because apparently having somewhat of a background in chemistry makes you a source as to if they're real or not. And these are people that I regard as intelligent people too, scary.Here's the thought: Not enough effort has been made to debunk the 'chemtrails' of computing.
I completely agree. For the average user, this is not something that needs to be pushed upon them. However, things like safe and work-appropriate web/computer usage, writing a professional email, and sending it to the intended recipient are definitely things that needs to be addressed in an office environment. For solutions, I guess this is the point of periodical courses performed by IT staff. I'm not sure what else can be done besides what is already done in most offices. People will not magically become interested in learning IT on their own, more than an unfashionable IT person might become interested in Italian fashion. Maybe companies simply needs to become more strict concerning IT skills in the hiring process?