If my clients who rely on computer use to obtain money are reluctant to learn even the basics, if I can get away with it, I will say "imagine your home builders didn't know the difference between a nail or screw? Learn file types, it's your screws and nails. Now imagine your bus driver doesn't understand road markings?"

It surprises me too, but I actually think that's fine. Lots of people have different skills and not everyone has to be the tech expert, as long as everyone acknowledges that it is an expertise and that that expertise deserves weight. But, most technical mistakes in an office setting don't result in serious injury or death, and that happens a lot in mechanics shops. People who decide whether dangerous machines are safe enough would need to have a higher level of technical professionalism than your average desk jockey.

I think that attitude is pretty common among people who make software that can get people killed (e.g. medical) but my experience is limited to a few secondhand conversations so I don't know how well-established that culture is. I've only ever worked on software that, if it failed, meant that a few people would get very upset and a bunch of people would get mildly upset, then we'd fix it and everyone would move on pretty quickly.

I do too, I think general-purpose compute has become a too-cheap way to solve problems that have more durable (and repairable) mechanical solutions. It makes the sticker price lower even if the total cost over the lifetime of the vehicle (or laptop, or washing machine, etc.).

I think it would be nice to have a law that certain hardware needs to have user-autitable and user-replaceable control software. If you want to ship your hardware product with some preinstalled software, the source code must be publicly available. I don't know how it would get passed in America because it would make consumer electronics more expensive to manufacture, but I think it would be helpful in the long term to legally decouple hardware from closed-source software.