Programming is arranging operators to do what you want and return what other operators need. If that's not what you (generic, not any specific individual) do when you program, you're just making stuff up and hoping it does what you want. And we see a lot of that here, and that's really the core of why I think the least specific model is worth challenging.

That's an entirely fair reason to challenge it. If you honestly think it is impairing someone's ability to understand what they are actively doing, that's in fact a very good reason to challenge it.

Now, of course, I have my usual and obvious question: Why do you think modeling the language using the abstraction so many people seem to prefer actively hinders their ability to arrange the operators to do what they want (in that abstraction) and return what they need (in that abstraction)? Perhaps it does hinder that understanding, but I have yet to read a solid explanation of how it does or why.

BTW, what a car does is move you from place to place at a relatively quick pace in relative safety and comfort. How it does it is usually by taking in air, mixing it with a combustible liquid fuel, compressing the mixture, sparking that mixture to drive a piston which drives a crank which both moves the near end of the transmission (which also moves the piston to compress the next dose of mixed fuel and air upon the firing of another cylinder) and a cam which operates the valves to get rid of the exhaust. It uses oil to lubricate, water to cool, and antifreeze to keep the water from freezing. How much past gas, oil, water, antifreeze must a driver know?