Your argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of websites with/without HTTPS. I assume PG's website is popular which gives weight to the argument that it should have HTTPS.
Except that you've missed that this is an extra overhead for some people and they don't want to deal with it. (if it ain't broke don't fix it). x.com is popular (because Elon) but there isn't https on there. I don't see anyone complaining except tech folk.
You can also apply this to PG himself, as he actively tells people to directly go to non-https, that shouldn't be an issue for his audience.
It takes less time for you to go to a non-https than it is for him to set HTTPS up and maintain it, if you're so concerned you can mirror his content to a https site.
Actually it should be but they are uneducated.
> if you're so concerned you can mirror his content to a https site.
That is a poor attitude. In a scenario where that fixed things it would only fix them for one person.
Or maybe they are educated and they realise it is a non-issue and not worth the effort to put into.
> That is a poor attitude. In a scenario where that fixed things it would only fix them for one person.
No it isn't, it would benefit anyone who cares about that specific issue, you can host it on a secure webpage if you care so much about it.