If lack of doors was standard, everybody would see the open frames, and culture would adapt to them. Weaknesses in computer security are much harder to spot. Sp

If lack of doors was standard, everybody would see the open frames, and culture would adapt to them. Weaknesses in computer security are much harder to spot. Spectre has been possible for decades without mainstream attention. It's this lack of understandability that I think is dangerous. Many people will assume systems are secure just because they don't see an obvious way to exploit them, and because the complexity has grown far beyond what will fit into a human brain there will undoubtedly be non-obvious flaws. Is weak security really better than no security? The "no security" model really means "socially enforced security", which is playing to human strengths. It's much easier to understand than figuring out the full consequences of speculative execution.