> fundamentally based on an irrational fear of the unknown — specifically the fear of having to rely on something that you may not be able to perfectly understand or control — and a prideful desire to not only control everything but not have to rely on the expertise of others.
That's you. Please don't project your inabilities on everyone else.
> I'm not so sure that's true.
Interesting that you think it's OK to simply assert something based on absolutely no actual data, information or experience, in direct contradiction to what others personally know and experience. What a take!
You're making an argument that looks like this: things happen, and we're OK with them. Therefore, we should be OK with the same things happening with other aspects of life. Simply, no. I can accept that I know very little about how municipal water systems prevent contamination, growth of microbes, et cetera, but how ridiculous is it to suggest that because I simply accept that it's done reasonably well, I have to do that in other areas, too? Do I need to accept being as ignorant about the intricacies of something as everyone else, even when I'm an expert in that particular field? That's absolutely ridiculous.
> simply not practical in any other field of life
Bullshit. I can think of many, many examples where this is plainly not true. See my previous statement.
The fact that you think this complexity that defies understanding is required to handle problems that can't be handled more simply shows you have a shallow understanding of things. I genuinely don't know if you can't understand this, or simply choose not to, but I'll say that you giving up does not have any impact whatsoever on those of us who haven't. Needless to say, arguing for others to give up wanting to understand something that you seem to lack understanding of is, in basic terms, gatekeeping. You're no different from people who say to not self-host email because they can't self-host email (or for whom it's too much "work", or takes too much energy). Likewise, if you don't want to do something, that's really not an argument for telling other people to not want to do something. What kind of person does that?
That's you. Please don't project your inabilities on everyone else.
> I'm not so sure that's true.
Interesting that you think it's OK to simply assert something based on absolutely no actual data, information or experience, in direct contradiction to what others personally know and experience. What a take!
You're making an argument that looks like this: things happen, and we're OK with them. Therefore, we should be OK with the same things happening with other aspects of life. Simply, no. I can accept that I know very little about how municipal water systems prevent contamination, growth of microbes, et cetera, but how ridiculous is it to suggest that because I simply accept that it's done reasonably well, I have to do that in other areas, too? Do I need to accept being as ignorant about the intricacies of something as everyone else, even when I'm an expert in that particular field? That's absolutely ridiculous.
> simply not practical in any other field of life
Bullshit. I can think of many, many examples where this is plainly not true. See my previous statement.
The fact that you think this complexity that defies understanding is required to handle problems that can't be handled more simply shows you have a shallow understanding of things. I genuinely don't know if you can't understand this, or simply choose not to, but I'll say that you giving up does not have any impact whatsoever on those of us who haven't. Needless to say, arguing for others to give up wanting to understand something that you seem to lack understanding of is, in basic terms, gatekeeping. You're no different from people who say to not self-host email because they can't self-host email (or for whom it's too much "work", or takes too much energy). Likewise, if you don't want to do something, that's really not an argument for telling other people to not want to do something. What kind of person does that?