laypeople

Agreed, and its especially scary because it isn't a consequence laypeople are typically familiar with and thus ignore.

Out of all the papers that laypeople publish anywhere, how many survive scrutiny from experts in the paper's problem domain?

These are questions that are left unanswered for laypeople, so it is just confusing and unrewarding.

It leads to so much confusion among laypeople.

Then we need to devote actual money to pay students to spend time teaching laypeople or varied ages/economic backgrounds/attention spans how to send secure messages.

> Tyrangiel says the piece is worth reading, not only because of the herculean efforts behind programming the page, but because it truly does bridge the gap between laypeople and programmers.

By saying we're doing decentralized X we're moving the problem of requisite operating skill to the designers who must make their systems simple enough for laypeople.

The thing laypeople need to remember when they read these impressive-sounding litanies of high-assurance systems is that the components that have been formally assured are the simplest parts of the system.

Most laypeople probably aren't interested in the hypertechnical details--do you read an article on what it's like to do mathematics and come out wondering why they didn't go into more depth explaining why functions over complex manifolds have interesting properties?

So laypeople believe in perpetual motion machines and the like with surprising ease, because they "just make sense" to their intuition (which maps pretty well to Aristotle's physics).

Prompting laypeople to adopt a more critical view of overly simplistic views of complex data sets is a goal any scientist can support, and for that we applaud their efforts." The "overly-simplistic views" referenced by the reviewers are exactly the ones approvingly quoted in this article by Psychology Today, and to which Fine is, appropriately, being offered as a counterpoint.