The observations in that post are helpful to illustrate the problem. But I can't agree with the author's conclusions.

There's another way to read every single one of his examples: as evidence of a design failure. For example:

> A message box opens up, but the kid clicks OK so quickly that I don't have time to read the message.

Users are so bombarded by unhelpful dialog boxes that many are trained to dismiss them as fast as possible. It becomes subconscious, some users literally can't see the dialogs anymore.

> I hand back the laptop and tell him that it's infected. He asks what he needs to do, and I suggest he reinstalls Windows.

This is obviously not the users fault. It's the responsibility of the system designers to make it hard to subvert. iOS is now ten years old with no major malware outbreaks -- it can obviously be done (through means that the author doesn't approve of, like application signing).

> I take the offending laptop from out of her hands, toggle the wireless switch that resides on the side, and hand it back to her.

Poor design decision. Normal users in 2017 basically never want no-network, dedicating the cost of a physical switch to it is doubly bad.

My point is that the author needs to stop lamenting that the hoi polloi have breached the gates and start taking seriously the question of how to design general purpose computing that actually serves most human beings. "Use Linux" is not, by itself, a remotely helpful suggestion. His "Mobile" suggestion is indistinguishable from satire.