<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>tscs37</author><text>Yeah but TempleOS also lacks networking so the house is also in interstellar space completely isolated from burglars trying to steal your stuff.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a very interesting design, I recommend to atleast play a bit with TempleOS.</text><parent_chain><item><author>sharpneli</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s like saying &amp;quot;I don&amp;#x27;t have any doors in my house, just open frames. So I&amp;#x27;m not affected by the weaknesses in locks.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>mrob</author><text>TempleOS has no process isolation, so it&amp;#x27;s completely unaffected by Spectre and Meltdown. I&amp;#x27;m starting to think there&amp;#x27;s a lot of wisdom in its design. Complexity of modern computer systems keeps increasing but the value I get from that complexity isn&amp;#x27;t increasing nearly as fast. Spectre and Meltdown are just recent examples of some of the cost of that complexity. Do we really need an OS too complex for any one person to completely understand?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>TempleOS creator Terry Davis is homeless and living in a van</title><url>https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/7218gh/templeos_creator_is_now_homeless/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mrob</author><text>If lack of doors was standard, everybody would see the open frames, and culture would adapt to them. Weaknesses in computer security are much harder to spot. Spectre has been possible for decades without mainstream attention. It&amp;#x27;s this lack of understandability that I think is dangerous. Many people will assume systems are secure just because they don&amp;#x27;t see an obvious way to exploit them, and because the complexity has grown far beyond what will fit into a human brain there will undoubtedly be non-obvious flaws. Is weak security really better than no security? The &amp;quot;no security&amp;quot; model really means &amp;quot;socially enforced security&amp;quot;, which is playing to human strengths. It&amp;#x27;s much easier to understand than figuring out the full consequences of speculative execution.</text><parent_chain><item><author>sharpneli</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s like saying &amp;quot;I don&amp;#x27;t have any doors in my house, just open frames. So I&amp;#x27;m not affected by the weaknesses in locks.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>mrob</author><text>TempleOS has no process isolation, so it&amp;#x27;s completely unaffected by Spectre and Meltdown. I&amp;#x27;m starting to think there&amp;#x27;s a lot of wisdom in its design. Complexity of modern computer systems keeps increasing but the value I get from that complexity isn&amp;#x27;t increasing nearly as fast. Spectre and Meltdown are just recent examples of some of the cost of that complexity. Do we really need an OS too complex for any one person to completely understand?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>TempleOS creator Terry Davis is homeless and living in a van</title><url>https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/7218gh/templeos_creator_is_now_homeless/</url></story>