* Pangram: Yes we should really be discouraging people from putting trust in tools like this because they can't be made totally reliable.

* Antivirus: We should be building application environments with robust security models so that malicious software has a limited blast radius (like we do on mobile, like the Linux ecosystem is trying to do with Flatpak, etc).

* HTTPS: HTTPS is a strict upgrade from HTTP so we should be using it everywhere possible. The UI symbols to indicate to users the security expectations they're getting are good practice.

* ssh: This is just an inappropriate comparison.

The HTTPS comparison would make more sense if actually 0.1% of the time when their browser said they were using HTTPS it was just lying.

When a motivated malicious user (who doesn't actually need that much resources) will be able to convince people something is authentic because the verification passes when it shouldn't since naive users are primed to believe it by default.

These "mistranslated proteins" are normally infrequent and benign, and their material is recycled eventually. But that whole process wastes energy, so making a "better ribosome" makes all cellular processes more energy efficient and allows the energy budget to be reallocated.

What this means is that users trying to reach each other need to shotgun messages to many relays, or congregate around specific ones. User profile data will list the relays they listen on, but this suffers from the problem of sticky defaults and makes client authors the kingmakers.

There's lots of centralization pressures like this that the protocol maintainers don't have a good answer to. They tout the simplicity of the protocol, which is often a virtue, but they overdid it and made the protocol too simple to achieve its goals.

I don't know why it's still like that but that's the original reasoning.

If you don't want it don't use it. It's that simple.

Forgejo is unaffected by this because it's the software not the service and is not subject to the service's terms of service. You're misunderstanding the scope of this policy change.

This is exactly it.

Try to buy a BYD in the United States. You can't (without a complicated process) because they're so much better cars than our domestic brands that our domestic brands couldn't compete and lobbied to keep them out.

> should by itself also limit the viability of the idea that all those VC billions will ever make a return?

It just has to last until the next quarter / fundraising round.

I'm curious what you mean by this. I'm not necessarily rejecting the point, but I also don't see how this could happen without substantial shifts in the industry first.

We have this now, every PC has some kind of graphics hardware, and has for many years. Consoles have been riding on their momentum of their brands, but the technical justification for their product category hasn't existed for 15+ years now.