[simscitizen]

Mobile OS vendors have already thought of that and came up with the exact same solution of requiring entitlements to access the network from a keyboard app:

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/keyboards_an...

The question is do you actually trust regular users to understand what’s going on when they’re asked for permission to grant an app the ability to do something sketchy?

[danielheath]

Bear in mind that on iOS, you can't just prompt for permission; those "regular users" need to be able to navigate to the settings app, find the relevant (deeply nested) section, and enable it there.

That narrows the gap significantly - to users who can't understand the issues, but can (even with the app providing an explanation) find reasonably well-hidden settings.

[LoganDark]

I've heard from a couple developers over the years that it's entirely impossible to implement a setting that will not be changed by people who don't know what it does.

It doesn't matter if it's behind a footnote, an easter egg, a password input, a magic email code, a call with the main project developer, all of the above, etc. No matter how many steps you try to add, there are still an incredible number of idiots who will mindlessly tap through literally any number of dialogs, warnings, and disclaimers to get to what they want.

Their brain will entirely filter out the path they took. They will probably not even remember a single one of those intermediate steps. The only thing they care about is that they're fixing some problem.

This could be one of the reasons Apple and Google don't want you jailbreaking/rooting your devices. Someone will inevitably make a guide, and millions of idiots will follow it. It will legitimately make the device less secure for them because they won't have any idea what they are doing and likely won't even remember doing it. The only thing they care about is that they're fixing some problem.

This is one reason why some people get so panicked and upset when anything on their computer changes unexpectedly, even if the change is actually harmless. They never actually understood anything. They had managed to accidentally get it how they want it through a combination of stuff that they don't remember. When anything changes, they have to go through that process again.

Look, these people are great at following guides and learning routines. Repetitive, mindless tasks like data entry are perfect for them, because they have no other talent to worry about wasting. But because these people exist, you have to be really careful about what settings you add, no matter how well you think it is hidden, because they will be changed by people who don't know what they're doing.

So far, the devs that have told me this have done so because I asked for some setting to turn off some safeguards, and they said that it's a near-universal request from power users, but they still can't do it, because the rest of their userbase is too clueless to be trusted with that setting. They'd receive bug reports from people who have no clue what went wrong, when the reality is that they disabled the safeguards in order to make something work, and then promptly forgot what happened once it worked the way they wanted. This has supposedly happened so many times in the past that they just don't take the risk anymore.

Anyway, all this is to say that while hiding a setting, as opposed to automatically prompting for it, can definitely rule out a decent chunk of idiots, you will never be able to rule out the resourceful idiots that can mindlessly follow instructions.

[rrr_oh_man]

I think you underestimate how much we all are these resourceful idiots under the right circumstances.

[LoganDark]

I'm biased because I'm neurodivergent, which means I don't have as much experience with neurotypical thought processes.

While I do use search engines and the resultant resources all the time, I don't follow steps completely cluelessly/mindlessly and later forget that I did it. I don't know what the equivalent would be for non-tech - I at least try to understand what a guide is doing so I can reproduce it independently later. I try to develop basic intuition for everything that I do. It is hard for me to imagine someone who lacks that ability. I don't mean to be offensive to anyone in particular, I just use "idiots" for the sake of argument to explain how any setting will eventually be found and changed.

Is it normal to forget the steps you took to accomplish a task? To, say, specifically turn off a setting for crash protection, then completely pull a blank if the program gets into a crash loop later?

[jameshart]

It’s not necessarily that you will forget that you changed a setting.

What’s more likely is that if you change a setting with an incomplete mental model of what that setting affects, you might later discover that it opened you up to some risk that you did not appreciate when you made the change.

This affects technical users just as much as nontechnical users, it just kicks in at a different level.

A user who clicks the ‘install anyway’ button on an OS warning dialog telling them they are about to run untrusted software might be doing so without an appreciation of quite how many safety features they just disabled, so when asked later on ‘when did you turn off your firewall?’ they honestly don’t know that was something they ever did.

But likewise, a developer who enables a setting to solve problem A, without realizing that that setting will also screw them when they run into problem B, is… basically the cause of 99% of debugging.

‘It can’t be DNS because that would always be cached, unless there’s some setting that… son of a bitch, who knew that when you enable debug logging it disables DNS caching?’ - some developer somewhere at least once a day

[rrr_oh_man]

> Is it normal to forget the steps you took to accomplish a task?

Yes, it’s very common. Immediately after doing it, in fact.

[LoganDark]

> Yes, it’s very common. Immediately after doing it, in fact.

Do you not even make mental notes of permanent changes you've made to the system...?

I mean, I don't think you'd, say, turn off some crash protection and then later complain about crashes. You'd remember that you previously turned it off, wouldn't you?

I'm so confused, heh.

[jamwil]

I don’t remember what I had for lunch

[medstrom]

I bookmarked this post, thanks! Really interesting.