Something I'm curious about - if GPG uses such old/not-recommended encryption standards, is it still secure in the sense that if I gpg encryption something and post it online, a three letter agency will be still unable to decrypt it?
I know right - they are all recommending Signal, Wire, WhatsApp, etc., but these aren't alternatives. They are all centralized, controlled by a single entity even if the underlying protocols are open. And you're right, they are instant messaging - ie. alternatives to Messenger, Hangouts, etc.
We need a modern email replacement that is decentralized, federated, et al. Something that keeps all the modern cryptographers happy, while facilitating the same kind of long form conversations and federated self-hostability that email provides.
I think Matrix is getting there, but even that is still focused on instant messaging.
> It's always seemed inevitable to me that one browser engine will win out.
I think it should be that one competing _standard_ will win out. Ideally we can have infinite number of browser engines, as long as each one implements all widely used standards correctly. We already see this with most websites working fine whether in chromium or firefox. The only incompatibilities (in theory) should come from bugs or new standards/experiments which haven't been widely adopted or implemented yet.
The same for javascript - multiple implementations of a js engine is fine, as long as they all implement the ES* standard.
Also if everyone moves to a Chromium engine monoculture, what will happen to innovation? eg. Mozilla has made some major progress with it's work with Servo.