And talking about security risks, wildcard certs are especially dangerous and should be forbidden from ever existing. They just lead to "copy it everywhere"-keys that, sooner or later, will leak. And that won't be revoked or replaced, because of course everything will break at once.

Oh, and the certificate errors will also come with external CAs. Chain too long? Error in some browsers. ECC signature? Error in some browsers. Chain with different paths? Error in some browsers. 4096bit certificate somewhere? Error in some browsers. Two different valid roots? Error in some browsers.

First, cost. Any CA that issues unlimited certificates will charge tons of money. Free CAs like letsencrypt do have rate limits that we would frequently hit with autoscaling environments, CI jobs, and such.

Also, CAs require the use of certificate transparency logs. Which will expose your internal infrastructure data to the public. It will, by exposing autoscaling data, also expose financial data (at least in hints), e.g. by showing that last christmas, your scaling peak was far higher.

And external CAs are a security risk because you need to provide firewall exceptions and/or transfer mechanisms for certificates into your internal infrastructure that you would usually want to isolate.

Lastly, an external CA is an availability risk. Should your external CA be unreachable for some reason, you might not be able to run any CI jobs or auto-scale-up your infra.

There are two possible answers to climate change: avoidance and preparation. Avoidance means that the world reduces its CO₂-footprint to zero or less to limit global warming or even to revert it. Preparation means that, if global warming cannot be avoided, states prepare for the changes in weather, sea level, agriculture, etc.

Avoidance can only work if all nations worldwide do participate to reduce their CO₂-footprint. If some big nations do nothing, or even worse, if non-consumption of fossil fuels by western nations causes a price drop and a shift of fossil fuel consumption to the rest (instead of an overall reduction), avoidance by the west is pointless and a waste of resources. All the world has to participate for avoidance to be successful.

On the other hand, preparation mostly works on a more local level. Nations with coastlines invest to protect those, nations threatened by water shortages invest in countermeasures such as maybe desalination or storages, etc. Even if the rest of the world doesn't care, preparation will mostly work for the local community.

Both avoidance and preparation need a lot of resources. But allocation to avoidance is only sensible if every nation agrees to it, otherwise those resources are wasted and far better spent on preparation.

So not really "free" at all, and rather expensive enough that nobody does it...

Your pet is more harmful to the environment than your car.

12. Less or no children.

All of the above, combined.

And most only support basic transactions, not checkpoints.

One is the EU: forcing them to use railway loading (such as in Switzerland) isn't possible due to the EU demanding free transit. Making transit on the autobahn prohibitively expensive by fees isn't possible, because the EU can and will veto higher fees or special transit fees. Changing status quo in the EU isn't possible, because all Germany's neighbours will veto.

Second is technical: Railways aren't standardized. Track width changes towards the east. Train station platforms and tunnels are different width and height per country, your load will bump into stuff unless you do lowest-common-size (which is smaller than a normal 20ft/40ft container crosssection, so non-viable). Signaling is different in each and every EU country. Rolling stock for goods transport is usually decades old and doesn't support any of the necessary modern safety standards like ECTS that are used on new tracks and cross-border. So you would have to have huge reloading terminals on each railway track and each border. Or you would have to modernize the railway system across Europe. Huge costs and lack of current demand create a chicken-egg-scenario here. Also, reloading creates delays, which the current just-in-time logistics are allergic to.

Third is domestic: There is also non-transit traffic, where origin or destination is somewhere in Germany. Those will still have to use roads, because the country doesn't have a dense-enough railway network. And building a sufficiently dense one would take forever, if at all possible. New construction is usually extremely expensive, delayed or stopped due to environmental/noise/landmark protection reasons (usually NIMBYs successfully abusing those regs). Only possibility is small extensions, such as "make this road/track/... a little wider", because it is already there which makes arguing against it on the aforementioned grounds harder.

So we maybe will debate if railways ever will take off and then just extend the autobahn. Because there is actually no other choice.