It's the same here. Without people who deeply understand a tool's input and output, we won't ever write a better tool.

[1] don't @ me, cryptographers and kernel programmers.

Agreed, but programming in ASM makes one think differently. In my opinion every programmer should do some elementary Assembler as part of their training, say some basic projects based on 8086 stuff or even the simpler 8085/Z80 etc. It's a long while since I've done any serious ASM work but the techniques one learns and the ideas one develops frame important attitudes that can't be easily gathered from high level stuff (one gains a better understanding of the underlying hardware and such).

You're right, we still need people for this work, it'd be pretty hard to optimize a compiler without them methinks.

FYI, there's stuff I omitted to mention in the above comment, I mentioned it below in my reply to bitcurious. It's interesting 'fitness for purpose' arises given your ASM comment.

Most young people don’t even have access to a mechanical watch these days.

First, I should say that I was perhaps a little harsh in my above comment and I didn't convey what I actually wanted to say. Unfortunately, I was distracted by the somewhat irritating fact that I couldn't view any of those drawings on two different smartphones (I could read the article but only saw white spaces where the drawings were supposed to be). It was only later when logged onto my PC that I could view them, and even then the whole page was sluggish and a pain to view. Perhaps those with faster equipment and or faster internet connection had better luck.

Thus, the thinly-veiled message behind my comment was a question about fitness for purpose—both about the subject matter and its method of delivery. My cynical inference was that if people today didn't already understand the basics of gearing, mechanical advantage and escapement mechanisms etc. then something has gone wrong with the education system in that the basics of how clocks worked were well covered in physics (in mechanics) during my first year in high school—and that should not have changed as we still live and move around in a mechanical world—and thousands of industrial mechanical devices use these principles and rely on people having a good working knowledge of them.

By third year physics, everything relevant about the essential workings of a clock would also have been covered at a basic mathematical level: Hooke's Law, gears and gear ratios, friction and simple harmonic motion. Even temperature expansion and contraction and the need to compensate for them was discussed (and in this context the physics teacher even discussed Harrison's famous chronometer and how his design included temperature compensation to ensure that changes in these parameters did not impact heavily on time drift).

In essence, by third year, everything of important in that article had been covered in the school curriculum. If articles such as that under discussion are now being used to compensate for the lack of training in high school science then we have a serious problem with the education system.

Incidentally, even if one's not interested in clock mechanisms, it's worth having a look at this 19th Century publication on mechanical movements that's on the Internet Archive (there are more types around than most people have ever likely considered: https://archive.org/details/Mechanical_Movements_507

First, I learned a concept in school, and probably forgot it. Later, I heard about it again, and hung the concept on the skeleton of what I remembered from school. Only much later, when I'm actually applying the concept (in my career, during home repair, when doing my son's homework), do I connect the dots and really understand the concept front to back.

When talking to people I'll say I learned the concept {of gearing, of escapements, of the behavior of springs} in school. But it's probably just as accurate to say that exposure to experiences like this site were what truly cemented them in my mind.

I don't think so, I'd reckon you'd be pretty typical. It's basically how I learn things and I'd think it's how most others acquire skills.

From my experience, the key issue is having an interest in the subject, subjects that I was interested in I did well in and it was the opposite for those that bored me. I suppose that makes sense but in both cases multiple passes were required before I became proficient - it's just that it took considerably longer when my interest was less.

However, what I've noted on many occasions is that there are students who I'd classify as a class that are just good at learning things even if the subjects have little interest for them per se, they're the ones who would often top the class and later in life you'd find them doing jobs unrelated to the subjects they did well in. I often think I'd like more of that trait.

For reasons I can only speculate about, my interest in certain specific subjects seems to have inate origins, it's as if some a priori interest was there before I knew about them. This doesn't necessarily bode well for other subjects that are deemed essential for one to become skilled in as one's learning can become lopsided.

There's little doubt that hands-on training works for most - and that brings me back to clocks. In physics practical classes on tension, springs, mechanical advantage, etc. we actually had clocks to experiment with. These were usually old bedroom alarm clocks and such that could be pulled apart and reassembled and if damaged it didn't matter much. We all learned from these experiences, even kids with little mechanical aptitude as clocks contains just about every instance of the physics we were learning about and it was obvious how they all came together to make clocks work.