Depends on the frame of reference of “single point-of-failure”.

In the context of technical SPOFs, sure. It’s a distributed system across multiple geographies and failure domains to mitigate disaster in the event any one of those failure domains, well, fails.

It doesn’t fix that technology is operated by humans who form part of the sociotechnical system and build their own feedback loops (whose failures may not be, in fact are likely not going to be, independent events).

SPOFs also need to contemplate the resilience and independence of the operators of the system from the managing organisation. There is one company that bears accountability for operating CF infra. The pressures, headwinds, policies and culture of that organisation can still influence a failure in their supposedly fully distributed and immune system.

For most people hosting behind Cloudflare probably makes sense. But you need to understand what you’re giving up in doing so, or what you’re sacrificing in that process. For others, this will lead to a decision _not_ to use them and that’s also okay.

The other reason I hypothesise is that corporate big brother snooping systems that have whitelists for their trusted services – with entries like mail.google.com or calendar.google.com – are simply too painful at this point for big tech to break for their customers by dropping the .com suffix, so big tech doesn’t bother.

No hard data on any of that, though.

Sorry, we all have our opinions and perspective, but money isn't the only value judgement.

I want my speedo in my easy line of vision on any vehicle I drive. I want to be able to demist my windscreen by reaching for a button I can find without taking my eyes off the road.

The A380 is one of my favourite aircraft. I never flew on a 747 and likely never will now, so it's the next best thing I've got for a two-deck experience.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39989626

Points: 8

# Comments: 7

His dry sense of wit and humour, his uncompromising pursuit of injustice and his loathing of foolhardy decisions made by the political or moneyed elites were evident in all he did and said. Misunderstood by some, I came to respect most his tenacity; at fighting the big guy – and, more often than not, prevailing with his typical grit, logic and determination. His work continues to inspire, especially since three decades after he founded the field he would go on to be recognised for internationally, in many business and industrial circles we are still making the same basic security mistakes, driven by the same flawed economic models as Ross predicted. His work is timeless.

When he spoke, I listened, and on those rare occasions he complimented my work, I did not take that for granted. It is a regret that I did not take the opportunity to do a PhD with him. Rest in peace.