did you look into their spec? perhaps they used the updated openpgp standard which has authenticated encryption. or perhaps they just sign everything.

and it's not just pgp with email, it's more akin to an overlaysystem.

yeah, the same for the rest. your fanboys are happy and the rest is just tired, because everyone who does not share your point of view has a invalid opinion.

We could live in a world where they don't exist and the vast majority of major financial institutions still wouldn't implement DNSSEC.

https://dnsinstitute.com/research/2020/banks-dnssec-202010.h...

You don't have to like, or agree with anyone. The data tells its own story.

i wait until they come to the hard stuff like awk, sed and grep.

ripgrep is one of the best grep replacement you can find, maybe even the best, and also one of the most famous Rust projects.

I don't know of a sed equivalent, but I guess that would be easy to implement as Rust has good regex support (see ripgrep), and 90%+ of sed usage is search-and-replace. The other commands don't look hard to implement and because they are not used as much, optimizing these is less of a priority.

I don't know about awk, it is a full programming language, but I guess it is far from an impossible task to implement.

Now the real hard part is making a true, bug-for-bug compatible replacement of the GNU version of these tools, but while good to have, it is not strictly necessary. For example, Busybox is very popular, maybe even more so than GNU in terms of number of devices, and it has its own (likely simplified) version of grep, sed and awk.

There is sd, not a drop in replacement though.

https://github.com/chmln/sd

What would be the point?

with that argument TLS would be insecure, because there are insecure TLS implementations.

That's not the argument, it's that it's a bad design repeatedly shown to be shown to be prone to serious vulnerabilities and it's silly to argue it's not a bad design at yet another such time.

People have made serious arguments for all sorts of design problems in SSL/TLS.

the design is not bad per se. pgp is just a bit outdated and needs an overhaul.

And cryptographic serialization is just difficult.

It's not resting, it's dead.

is it possible to route DoH over generic HTTPS service when i only inspect a certain route? so i could have a generic https-server, where at some route, DNS requests are answered, other stuff just gives me a normal website?

because then we could use DoH for hiding our DNS requests..

This is how it works already, the DoH endpoint is "/dns-query", both CloudFlare and Google route this endpoint to their resolver services, while the rest of the site (one.one.one.one or dns.google) is just a website.

Yes.

DoH requests go to /dns-query so you only need that path to proxy onto your DoH handler.

Some DoH clients will also allow you to specify a custom path, so you can also obfuscate the path by configuring client and server to use /foobar instead.

But, re-using an existing site does come at the cost of generating a bunch of extra log noise (fine if it's just you, not so fine if it isn't). If you don't have some kind of auth in place, you might also find that you suddenly come under a lot of load (when I ran a public DoH service, I eventually started getting a lot of traffic from users in an authoritarian country)

i just wish, somebody would ratify something like asciidoc+zim-wiki as a document format .. and include proper citing (like in emails).

Than all this code+program+data could be decoupled.

I use zim/markdown too, asciidoc is nice(r).

That's my main objection to this urtext thing - it's yet another text format, i.e., not really plaintext.

I'm sure you could use it to run your life, but should you, probably not. Better to stick with more standard formats. You can even script those with Python, too...

To be honest, many of the people who critize wikipedia.. just do not want to fork the content. it would be possible. they all like the work people put into it. but as soon as it does not fit the worldview anymore...

are there manipulations? sure. then more people should watch it. and wikipedia should have a better process on controversal topics in own areas.

but the whining is abysmal.

Justapedia has forked English Wikipedia almost three years ago and is doing good so far, even if they're still ignored by major search engines.

This suggestion ignores network effects.

Right, which is one of the most valuable parts about Wikipedia (or truly any product) and should be factored in.

The information on Wikipedia is important, but the existence of Wikipedia and you and I both knowing about it is more important. This is why building up existing institutions is almost always more valuable than the "burn it all down" populist mentality we see in politics today. Just the existence of the current thing represents some inertia, some energy, some goals, and that has value.

where do you draw the line between whining and legitimate concerns? forking wikipedia wouldn't address the core quality issues and how low quality content is syndicated to billions via search engines, LLMs, academic references etc.

> We hear you loud and clear ..

oh, corporate wording. so you do not really care :D

Probably already approved by the legal department which is working in damage control mode :D

> oh, corporate wording. so you do not really care :D

Better do care a lot about it, and use every syllable of the corporate statement against Microsoft. :-)

I.e. the principle of some martial arts: use the force that the opponent applies against himself/herself.

Addendum: In this particular case

> We hear you loud and clear ..

can be considered as a very official statement from Microsoft that from now on, they cannot claim anymore that they didn't know of something ..., i.e. the hangman's noose is slowly closing. :-)

> The feds don’t generally indict unless it’s a slam dunk.

You do not need to. You can ruin reputation. You can starve them in court proceedings and rituals.

> 1. Millions of business executives go their entire life without insider trading

Citation needed. At some point at some position you will be ALWAYS vulnerable. that's for the people at the top and at the bottom. both are very vulnerable. the people at the top have MUCH to loose. the people at the bottom can be stopped to have anything to loose and still be tortured.

> Citation needed

That's not how things work.... It's also a weird way to have a conversation or discussion.

I can't prove a negative that millions of people didn't do something.

> At some point at some position you will be ALWAYS vulnerable.

It costs $50 to become a CEO. It does not make you vulnerable nor likely to commit federal crimes.