Yes, the reviewers' comments and the authors' rebuttals are generally confidential, and there are good reasons for doing it that way. One significant reason is to allow the reviewers to make their comments freely, without worrying about how those comments might be perceived by the public or how the authors' reputations might be impacted; likewise with the authors' rebuttals. Another reason is to avoid tainting the review process in situations where a paper is rejected from one journal and re-submitted to another -- the second set of reviewers should not know that it was previously rejected, nor should they know why it was previously rejected.

On the other hand, the peer review process is "open" in the sense that there is no explicit credential required to be a reviewer, only expertise in the field (typically determined by publishing papers -- in principle someone with no formal education could publish enough papers to start getting invitations to be a reviewer). It is also "open" in the sense that anyone can submit a paper for review as long as it adheres to formatting (page layout, font size, etc.) and length requirements.

It is hard to imagine a worse attempt at establishing a collection of commonly accepted truths than Wikipedia. Scientific journals are overwhelmingly better at weeding out falsehoods and hoaxes, despite the history of successful efforts to dupe reviewers. University libraries are also better at collecting knowledge, and in fact the entire industry of journal publishing began at university libraries. That knowledge is not locked away from the masses, it is just less convenient to access than Wikipedia.

Even Wikipedia has had to accept that a certain amount of oversight and review is necessary. There are some topics that attract bad actors, paid shills, state-sponsored propagandists, etc., and Wikipedia had to introduce "protected pages" to deal with such things. Add a structured review process and more rigorous citation requirements and those "protected pages" would be a lightweight version of academic publishing.

Those issues are partially addressed with "identity based encryption," but IBE always has a "backdoor" because there is a party that issues the users' private keys (and hence can always read a users' messages). On the other hand IBE does allow you to "just send" an email to someone because the public keys are just the "identities" (e.g. email addresses) combined with a single master public key. Key management is not as much of a problem because of how keys are generated. IBE does have some users, but as you said it is mostly business/organizational use.

Except that was an afterthought. Originally only whitelisted developers were allowed to use SGX at all, back when DRM was the only use-case they had in mind.

SGX and TEEs generally are and always were a DRM solution, with the server use-case mostly being an afterthought that the marketing teams pushed hard. They also create a fantastic forced-obsolescence program as they require active support on the part of chip makers throughout an application's lifecycle; Intel can arbitrarily deprecate otherwise functional CPUs by just not revoking compromised keys (and perhaps releasing a few into the wild just to force people to upgrade).

In theory BGP can be used within a single network, though it is not well-suited to such an application except in very large networks. Facebook is known to use BGP internally [2]. Usually an "interior gateway protocol" like OSPF or IS-IS is better for internal routes, with BGP then distributing those routes to the external networks from the gateway routers (i.e. those routers that interconnect the networks). BGP can also be used for other, more niche applications within a single network, like setting up VPNs (VPLS, VPNv4, etc.).

[1] https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/bgp-stuck-routes-tcp-zero-wi...

[2] https://research.facebook.com/publications/running-bgp-in-da...

The fact of the matter is that we have had the ability to create a technical process for executing a will for a long time. Banks allow you to designate a beneficiary who receives your assets after you pass away and that is executed automatically. We do not have to allow people to dispute that, and cryptocurrency does not really add much over such a system -- but we do not want that system because some objections are legitimate and disputes need to be resolved.

You asked where the Jewish messiah is, but like the old joke goes, for Jews the problem is waiting and waiting for a messiah that has yet to come, but for Christians the problem is that the messiah came and the world did not change.

Obviously rabbinic answers are not going to be very satisfactory or convincing to you; if rabbinic teachings made sense to you then you would have converted to Judaism by now. That said, rabbinic teachings are not a secret, so here are some answers to your challenges:

The animal sacrifice system was, according to rabbinic teaching, sufficient but not necessary to atone for sin. Among other things Jews point out that during the Babylonian exile there was no temple in Jerusalem and no sacrifices being offered, but that God did send prophets to explain to the Jewish people how they can deal with sin while in exile and without sacrifices. Another point is that when the sacrificial laws are stated, non-animal sacrifices are explicitly described; poor people could, for example, offer just a handful of flour if they could afford nothing better.

Why did God let the temple be destroyed? For the same reason the First Temple was destroyed. The Jewish people were punished for their national sins. In the case of the Second Temple, part of the national sin was dividing into competing factions who would sometimes try to use the oppressive Romans as a means to undermine competing sects.

Why are there no more prophets? In fact the rabbis do not have a single answer, it remains unclear in rabbinic tradition. Is that a problem? There are plenty of unclear, unanswered questions for Christians too; why is Jesus taking so long to come back? That said, some rabbinic answers include: the Jewish people are being punished for national sins; the true end of prophecy was the destruction of the First Temple, with subsequent prophets only repeating earlier prophecies; the prophets were sent at a time when the temptation to turn to idolatry was particularly strong, but that temptation diminished when the Jews returned to Israel and began building the Second Temple.

Maybe none of that works for you, and that's fine -- Jews are not actively seeking converts, so the opinion of non-Jews does not really matter; the Jewish view is that Judaism is for Jews and that the rest of the world only needs to hold to a handful of common sense morals (like not murdering each other and settling disputes in peaceful courts; I assume that much makes sense to you).

Really though, what makes you think any form of Second Temple Judaism could have survived the destruction of the Second Temple? Moreover, if Jews could find a way to keep Judaism alive in some form after the destruction of the First Temple, why should it be surprising that some form of Judaism was kept alive after the destruction of the Second Temple?

Citation needed.

Pretty much all secular scholarship I have ever seen on this topic has concluded that both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity were reactions to the destruction of the second temple. Rabbinic Judaism is the direct intellectual and religious descendant of the pharisee sect, and has always stood on its own merits. The only rabbinic tradition that definitively developed in response to the rise of Christianity is the birkat haminim, a prayer that was used to "out" secret Jewish Christians before the final split between the religions. Beyond that, all there is are attempts to deal with / respond to persecution of Jews and Jewish institutions by Christians in later centuries (e.g. the fixing of the Jewish calendar after Christian Rome disbanded the Sanhedrin).

Don't overstate the importance of Christianity to the early rabbis. Rabbinic literature is generally dismissive of non-Jewish religions and Jewish Christians like the Ebionites were seen as heretics -- a term the rabbis used for non-rabbinic Jewish movements of the Roman era (of which there were many, none of which have survived).

As for the Gospel, it does not really matter what people thought hand washing was for -- ritual washing hands did improve their hygiene, just like ritual bathing. Jesus told his followers not to bother, and it does not matter whether or not he understood the hygiene implications, because not washing their hands was still detrimental to hygiene.

You can also take a bath if you want to, but don't make it a matter of spiritual, ritual cleanliness as Jesus did.

Also, Christians really need to learn what "pharisee" actually means before throwing the word around the way you do. "Neo-pharisees" would imply that the pharisees were some ancient group that ceased to exist at some point. In reality "pharisee" simple means "rabbi," and the only reason the term fell out of use is that the only recognizably Jewish movement to survive the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish-Roman wars was rabbinic Judaism. Almost any Jews you meet today practice a religion that can be traced directly to the pharisees mentioned in the New Testament. Moreover, the religious movement Jesus led was closer to what the pharisees taught and practiced than it was to any other Jewish movement of that time. One easy example is Jesus' own teaching that a man who has lustful thoughts about a woman has already committed adultery in his own heart; this is the kind of broadening of Jewish law that is common in rabbinic documents like the Talmud (e.g. "yichud," a prohibition on unmarried men and women being alone behind a closed door). Jesus also taught his followers answers to common Rabbinic debates, such as the famous dispute between Hillel and Shammai about when divorce is permitted.

Jesus was not nearly as radical as some Christians think. His movement was very slightly outside the mainstream, and for the most part his focus seems to have been on avoiding blind adherence to tradition. His willingness to accept disciples who were uneducated and even outcasts was unusual, but not that unusual, with the Talmud indicating that Rabbi Akiva was illiterate until he turned 40 and that Rabbi Shimon bar Lakish was the leader of a criminal gang before he began studying to be a rabbi (you may not believe such stories, but remember that the New Testament is no more historically reliable than the Talmud). Paul taught a religion that was much more radical than anything Jesus taught, but somehow I do not think you were referring to Paul when you spoke of "a just man willing to make a real sacrifice."

I also take issue with the idea that there is no joy or value in life unless someone has a "sincere relationship" with the Christian deity. There are plenty of happy, healthy, and fulfilled atheists, not to mention the many polytheists and idolaters who live equally fulfilling, joyous, and righteous lives. You do not have to agree with how anyone else approaches life, but to claim that only the Christian deity can bring meaning, worth, freedom, or good to a person's life is the darkest worldview I can imagine. Christianity is the world's most popular religion but the majority of the world is not Christian. Do you actually think that non-Christians live depressing lives dominated by evil and unjust practices?

Moreover, Jesus is recorded elsewhere as having taught his disciples a practice of ritual foot washing (involving washing another person's feet), which remains a practice among some Christians to this very day. He even went on to explicitly indicate that foot washing is spiritually important. Jesus also taught his followers to practice a form of ritual bathing, clearly given spiritual significance and clearly a variation of Jewish ritual bathing, that remains widely practiced by Christians today: baptism. So, if we accept the account of the gospels, it would seem that Jesus was not really opposed to washing rituals in general, nor to treating ritualized washing as a matter of spiritual significance, he just had a different concept than the mainstream Rabbinic tradition.