I think you live in a highly theoretical parallel universe. The one I occupy is the one where 'good teams' profile those things that take too long.
Take yourself as an example: in spite of the wide availability of free certificates you are still hosting your domain without using a secure transport layer. Some would take that as incompetence. Others would assume you have more stuff on your plate rather than that you don't have high standards.
And others would assume, that there are other philosophies out there regarding ssl everywhere. So the question is, who's POV has more validity and logical rigor attached to it. I actually can't see any side winning here on a purely logical level. Only on an ideological level. At least as long as we are talking about consuming public information.
Am I in favor of the aggressiveness of OP in other posts? No. Am I using SSL myself. Hell yes.
Nonetheless, I understand that there are people who feel that consuming public information like on a private homepage is nothing that necessitates using SSL. Even if I myself have a different ideology/value set governing my decision.
I once heard the comparison that it is like the difference of sending a letter and sending a picture postcard. Not sure if I buy into that, but I can't argue against it on a purely rational basis.
> The one I occupy is the one where 'good teams' profile those things that take too long.
Deciding which things take too long is profiling. Maybe you do it in your head or with pencil and paper instead of using a software approach but I think your position aligns with "good teams profile everything".
Take yourself as an example: in spite of the wide availability of free certificates you are still hosting your domain without using a secure transport layer. Some would take that as incompetence. Others would assume you have more stuff on your plate rather than that you don't have high standards.