and its usage will result in your immediate death

This all-or-nothing approach, where compromises are never allowed, is my biggest annoyance with some privacy/security advocates, and also it unfortunately influences many software design choices. Since this is a nice thread for ranting, here's a few examples:

• LibreWolf enables by default "resist fingerprinting". That's nice. However, that setting also hard-enables "smooth scrolling", because apparently having non-smooth scrolling can be fingerprinted (that being possible is IMO reason alone to burn down the modern web altogether). Too bad that smooth scrolling sometimes makes me feel dizzy, and then I have to disable it. So I don't get to have "resist fingerprinting". Cool.
• Some of the modern Linux software distribution formats like Snap or Flatpak, which are so super secure that some things just don't work. After all, the safest software is the one you can't even run.
• Locking down permissions on desktop operating systems, because I, the sole user and owner of the machine, should not simply be allowed to do things. Things like using a scanner or a serial port. Which is of course only for my own protection. Also, I should constantly have to prove my identity to the machine by entering credentials, because what if someone broke into my home and was able to type "dmesg" without sudo to view my machine's kernel log without proving that they are me, that would be horrible. Every desktop machine must be locked down to the highest extent as if it was a high security server.
• Enforcement of strong password complexity rules in local only devices or services which will never be exposed to potential attackers unless they gain physical access to my home
• Possibly controversial, but I'll say it: web browsers being so annoying about self-signed certificates. Please at least give me a checkbox to allow it for hosts with rfc1918 addresses. Doesn't have to be on by default, but why can't that be a setting.
• The entire reality of secure boot on most platforms. The idea is of course great, I want it. But implementations are typically very user-hostile. If you want to have some fun, figure out how to set up a PC with a Linux where you use your own certificate for signing. (I haven't done it yet, I looked at the documentation and decided there are nicer things in this world.)

This has gotten pretty long already, I will stop now. To be clear, this is not a rant against security... I treat security of my devices seriously. But I'm annoyed that I am forced to have protections in place against threat models that are irrelevant, or at least sufficiently negligible, for my personal use cases. (IMO one root cause is that too much software these days is written for the needs of enterprise IT environments, because that's where the real money is, but that's a different rant altogether.)