In the days of Apple II and similar machines a person who operated a computer knew it, because computers were simpler and because there was no other way and because you'd generally buy a cheaper toy if you didn't want to learn it.

Also techno-optimism of the 70s viewed the future as something where computers make the average person more powerful in general - through knowing how to use a computer in general, that is, knowing how to write programs (or at least "create" something, like in HyperCard).

That was the narrative consistent with the rest of technology and society of that time, where any complex device would come with schematics and maintenance instructions.

Then something happened - most humans couldn't keep up with the growing complexity. Something like that happened with me when I went to uni with undiagnosed AuDHD. There was a general path in the future before me - going there and learning there - but I didn't know how I'm going to do that, and I just tried to persuade myself that I must, it should happen somehow if I do same things others do with more effort. Despite pretense and self-persuasion, I failed then.

It's similar to our reality. The majority stopped understanding what happens around them, but kept pretending and persuading itself that it's just them, that the new generation is fine with it all, that they don't need those things they fail to understand, etc. Like when in class you don't understand something, but pretend to. All the older generation does that. The younger generation does another thing - they try to ignore parts of the world they don't understand, like hiding their heads in the sand. Or like a bullied kid just tries not to think about bullies. Or like a person living in a traditionally oppressive state just avoids talking about politics and society.

That narrative has outlived its reality not only with computers.

People are eager to believe in magic. Do you need to know how to cook if you have dinner and breakfast trees (thank you, LF Baum)? So they think we have such trees. It's an illusion, of course. Very convenient, isn't it, to make so many industries inaccessible to amateurs.

It's very simple. There's such a thing as "too complex". The tower of Babel is one fitting metaphor.

You don't need this complexity in an AK rifle. Just like that, you don't need it in an analog TV. And in a digital TV you need much less complexity too. We don't have it in our boots - generally. We don't have it in our shirts. Why would we have it in things with main functionality closer to them in complexity than to SW combat droids?

I think Stanislaw Lem called this a "combinatoric explosion" when predicting it in one of his essays.