🚀 go-pugleaf

Cummins & Norman represent opposite sides of what I consider a rising
debate in technology and its application. When I started "programming"
in 1964, computers were able to do little more than repetitive
algebraic operations. With the growth of this and other technologies,
the public's expectation of the "electronic brain", "electronic slave",
etc. has always outstripped the capability of the day.

When I am building something with lumber and nails, I pick up a tool:
a hammer. This tool has been around for quite a while. I know what it
can do. It does it reliably. I don't ask the hammer manufacturer to
build me a fuzzy logic-controlled adaptive laser gyro-stabilized
nail inserter even though it would improve the final result and
keep me from hitting my thumb every now and then. I wouldn't want to
pay for or maintain one. My hammer provides adequate "leverage" for
me with respect to the task.

Often the lists of "wishes", "wants" and "needs" to hardware and
software manufacturers really miss the mark for the tool. A
hammer with a head pointed off to the side is hard to use and should
be fixed. A hammer that lets you hit your thumb every now and then
is fine from my perspective just the way it is. Careful thought is
required to discern where your "problem" belongs. An even more difficult
situation arises when a single product must service both those like
me and those that need a gyro-hammer. Maybe a stratification of the
product is the only solution.

Paul J. Beckmann
Scientist
Department of Psychology
U of Minnesota