Lots of humans have no inner monologue. I think mostly in abstract shapes, spatial relations, and interactions. If anything I find the idea of thinking in linear sentences limiting.
I've had a two different dogs do this independently by now:
They'll be laying down happily napping. Then they get up, walk to a different room, and some seconds later come back carrying a toy. They return to where they used to lay, lay down again, and put the toy on their front paws.
I don't know what else that was than the thought of wanting one of their favorite toys there for comfort. (Familiar-smelling things are comforting to dogs.)
Phone calls are not the same communication mechanism as instant messaging. Look at the timestamps in the mock screenshots and think about holding the other person on the phone for that long before you say your second line.
Ah yes complex global rollout being forced to production on an arbitrary rapid deadline is exactly the time when more code of unknown quality should be added to the system at the last minute.
What's dumb about it? I'd suggest that it's slightly abstract and argue that there's nothing wrong with that. It fits perfectly and it's readily understandable.
For example a VPN connection lends itself to being described as a pipe. That already equates the encapsulating protocol with a physical barrier regardless of the presence of cryptography.
I think you're just being overly literal, something which will kill almost any decent analogy regardless of topic.
You have a very large subthread debating downstream confusions, which were previously debated in millions of such discussion on-line too. It's a confusion everyone has to learn to live with when first exposed to concept and the metaphor of "keys" and "locks".
And it's because it does not fit. Locks and keys are distinct kinds of objects, and are external to the thing being protected, with lock itself being attached to the thing being protected. Only the key can be distributed separately and copied; you come into possession of the security mechanism and the protected object together, they're literally unseparable (that's the point - if you can separate the lock from the thing, you don't need the key anymore).
Encryption in contrast is (reversibly) destroying the thing being protected, the "locking mechanism" is public and same for everyone and therefore you already have a copy, and you can't "bypass" it because the very thing being protected has been destroyed (scrambled) and you cannot undo that without having the "key".
There's no 1:1 mapping of any concept from physical locks and keys to encryption. It's a fundamentally dumb analogy that people run away with, because at first look it seems to have some semantic similarities.
> how to use the DMV's public key to check whether a California ID is real.
That's not what the signature guarantees, though. It says the combination of textual information on the card is *someone's* valid driver's license. The signature doesn't even cover the photo! It just limits the forgeries to using identities of real people.
The forgery path is downloading the leaked database of 153 million driver's license images, picking one with the right gender, rough age, weight and height, and printing a card with that text+barcode and your photo.
reply