I might translate this to "If you don't understand what it's for, don't use it for what you think it might be for." Things like this exist, and they are exactly

I might translate this to "If you don't understand what it's for, don't use it for what you think it might be for." Things like this exist, and they are exactly as absurd and dangerous as this, but they aren't for people who don't know what they are doing, they are for people who know exactly what they are doing. It is like a booby-trapped burial site where only the priest are supposed to be able to get in without getting crushed by boulders or impaled on spikes. Unfortunately most code doesn't come with a sign that says "never call this function unless you know exactly how many C level executives are going to be up all night when you do." Engineered safety controls tell you that some things should be obscure and hard to figure out so that people who don't know what the are doing don't accidentally destroy something. On the other hand this prevents knowledge transfer and effective communication, but if it is not obscure some idiot will set both the `--i-know-what-i-am-doing` and the `--i-accept-full-legal-resonsbility-for-the-consquences-of-running-with-this-enabled` flags AND do it in a shell script. This article is spot on, and I have come to think of people who have developed this mindset as having a kind of selective lack of curiosity, say, defensive disinterest -- they see a system that they don't understand, identify that it appears to be dangerous, leave it bloody well alone, and possibly leave a note telling others to do so as well. Those in the know hopefully appreciate when the defensively disinterested warn others off, and as in this thread, take the opportunity to educate about the potentially not completely insane use cases for such things.