> I’m not asking people to be experts, just to know how it works

But if you "know how something works" in detail, such that you fully understand its workings and behavior, you're pretty much an expert. To really know how a database works is a project that takes hundreds of hours of dedicated study, and the deeper you look, the more nuance you find. Otherwise, you'll inevitably make the kinds of flawed generalizations that you dislike about the OP's mental model.

As I say, I have sympathy for your argument. I have spent a lot of time studying databases, I've contributed some patches to Postgres, I like understanding how things really work. But the reality is: full-stack development today is fractally complex. There are MANY components that each might require hundreds of hours to understand, and it's actually not economically valuable for you or your employer to rabbit-hole down each one before you start using it. You need to be able to pick up the key idea of a technology, using the appropriate resources, without fully studying it out.

--

I think that perhaps we understand the article differently. I think you understand it as a tradeoff between "understanding a system a little bit" vs. "understanding deeply," in which case, sure, it's easy to argue that we should all understand technologies deeply. But I think the real tradeoff is for beginners -- "understanding only the apparent outer workings of a system" vs. "having a first-order model of the components that lead to that behavior." Going one level down is the first step to going all the way, and there is a big difference in even going one level down.