They are expected to make it more challenging than other less challenging arguments. Almost all security that isn’t lethal is deterrance not solution. I have

They are expected to make it more challenging than other less challenging arguments. Almost all security that isn’t lethal is deterrance not solution. I have already preempveoy addressed this argument (which — respectfully — is a favorite HN counterpoint every time locks and security come up) in another comment, but here is the heart of it here: But what about locks? You said locks before but locks aren’t that secure. The term “fitness for purpose” refers to a product or service that is not working as intended or expected. If you don’t sell a car with locks and claim you have a security system, no fault. But if you do and it doesn’t work, fault. Same for locks. Physical locks are not meant to make things impossible to get to. They just make it hard to get to. No amount of physical locks will ever make something 100% secure because even if they are unpickable, and there are some unpickable locks, physical things can be broken. The point of physical locks are that it takes the robber time and energy to get around them. If it takes more time and energy to do it most robbers will just go to the next location and hope there is less security. because of this most people just need convenient locks. Ones that do not take up a lot of space or time to open. It is only when we see extremely valuable things that the higher tech locks that take a lot of space/time/energy to work with. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e...