>>106266159
to be fair, pretty much everything in "tech" (modern consoomer computing) is made by people, for people, using tools far removed from natural processes, designed along guidelines that don't have to care about core properties of the material world let alone anything actually intuitive. when it comes to using a computer, you can train birds to do it, let alone HR roasties and DEI hire jeets. companies just choose not to for cost reasons, and barely-competent would-be-hell-deskers refuse to for "gatekeeping".

>>106266188
>How the fuck did we get here?
i hate to sound like a boomer but i think it's a lack of passion. people just don't care. it used to be nobody cared as long as nobody died but even that is fading away. to quote a shitty youtuber, Boeing used to have the engineers participate in test flights. as in, they would have to sit in the cabin as the plane took off, circled about, and landed. That enforces "skin in the game" to make sure your designs work. these days, people work on things that they will never, ever use, so even if they do care on an ethical level they don't know what to care about because they don't use the product they create/support.

It's why I'm a big proponent of "total force" concepts and heavy cross-training. If I, the IT dustman, has to support something that is only used by naval engineers, I better know at least the surface level of the equipment the stuff I gotta support has to actually touch in real life. Likewise, when the naval engineers do their nonsense, I would hope that they have an appreciation of how many times they'll crash my servers and how many inches of water I can tolerate being in my space at a time.