This is a very bad analogy. Anyone in a car crash potentially benefits from airbags without knowing anything about them (or even if they exist at all).
The 99.9% of people who don't even know the difference between www and non-www will never directly benefit from seeing www, ever.
> The 99.9% of people who don't even know the difference between www and non-www will never directly benefit from seeing www, ever.
You don't need to know the difference to be able to read the URL off, potentially to someone who does.
It's not impossible (though it's not a good idea) for “example.com” and “www.example.com” to both host web content, and whether or not they know or care about the meaning of the domain name, someone accessing one should be able to, in the event they have a problem, be able to read off which one they are accessing to the person trying to help them resolve the problem.
We must avoid friction between two types of user, 99.9%er and 0.1%er. We could have separate browsers aimed at each.
One browser should be dead simple, secure, and streamlined, aimed at the 99.9%s. Maybe it could be named after a metal.
Another browser, for the 0.1%s, should include technical arcana on screen and have more mutability, perhaps even at the cost of some performance and security. This one could be named after some kind of canid.
The 99.9% of people who don't even know the difference between www and non-www will never directly benefit from seeing www, ever.