Comment by nine_k
4 years ago
It's like saying car crashes are rare, insured against, and you personally never experienced one.
This does not mean car crashes can be ignored, or cannot happen to be dangerous.
There is a balance between the possible damage because of not checking signatures remotely, and the possible damage from not being able to run a program when the remote checking service is unavailable. But there is no situation where the average damage is exactly zero :-/
What? In your analogy, the parent commenter would be saying "I'm puzzled that people are willing to buy an operate an automobile given that they can be involved in dangerous accidents."
And in this analogy, I'm not saying "we should ignore car crashes." I'm saying "the reason people still buy and operate automobiles despite the possibility of accidents is pretty simple."
Your metaphor suffers an imbalance in spectrum. We are hardly talking about life and death here. You clearly can’t make the same comparison to car crashes. People’s motivations will certainly not be the same in these two cases.