>>88378546I'm not sure why the central-point of "things are unreliable and unmaintainable because they are over complicated" is up for debate at all but just to indulge an argument for arguments sake...
>No John, people do learn low level systems, and get paid to do so; although, the skill is [in] less demand.The funny thing is, everyone likes to strawman Jon as saying anyone who disagrees with him "just doesn't get it" or "is missing the point". In your case though, that is 100% true.
You didn't get it.
You missed the point.
The point was that information needs to be widely disseminated in a resilient medium in order to be able to withstand external stressors, not something exclusive to some super-minority of literate elites. I know the counter argument here is that the info will always be accessible because the Internet exists but you know very well if major corporations and government bodies had their way that wouldn't be the case, they are absolutely producing pressures to pull the plug. This year alone, inflation and rising energy prices have had a direct influence on how much it costs to keep information in circulation and for all we know this is just the start. The idea that something can't be lost once it's on the Internet is naive, if you think that you haven't been using it for long enough.
Even if we lived in some magical world where the Internet is the lone exception to the only absolute that "nothing lasts forever", know-how still needs to be in people's possession before it is needed, otherwise you can only ever fix something after it becomes a problem rather than simply preventing the problem to begin with.