@joepie91 and since they use it as intended the people that don't will also not use the lock as intended. So the lock will not work. 2/2

@joepie91 you can't Design something for someone not using stuff in a different way than intended for security. Because that's already the whole issue

@MTRNord a) that's not even close to how security measures work in real life, and b) if someone's "honest" by this definition, then you shouldn't even need a lock, a sign or whatever should be enough

@MTRNord I also extremely dislike the honest/dishonest dichotomy in there because it overly simplifies the complexities and motivations of crime into "good people" vs. "evil people"

@joepie91 I agree with you in tech world fully. But looking at people like lock picking lawyer it clearly is that way for real world locks. Most of them are just a fancy chunk of metal which tries to scare away someone while it brings no security to someone who has a basic understanding of its flaws. (obviously there exist good locks as exceptions. But the avg store lock likely can't be considered secure)

@MTRNord What does "having an understanding of locks" have to do with honesty?

Like, this is precisely the problem that I have with the original statement - there are a million ways to explain that statement, but none of them actually *make sense* when you think about it, and I cannot help but wonder what the actual intended messaging behind it is