More competition can't lead to nastier alternatives, more competition leads to both higher quality and lower prices. And power of copyright that protects pretty much just the wealth of rich corporations doesn't simply disappear. Taking it away creates new power for everyone else equally distributed, leading to more competition, more independent creators and small companies, not more rich corporations, as those won't be able to concentrate wealth without it.
The world you are describing is impossible and part of it already exists precisely because of the power of copyright, not the other way around (models are already screwed and have to give up rights to corporations, they certainly aren't powerful enough to monitor where their images are used, inventors too have to give up rights to corporations and do get their stuff stolen, remember how Google did that? And it was just one public occurrence).
In fact Elixir and Erlang are the only reasonably known dynamic languages that differentiate on concurrency. The rest either do higher order event loop concurrency, which is ok, but not a differentiator, or do worse, shared memory multithreading (threads, coroutines with synchronous channels, mutexes, etc.)
What you are talking about is unrelated to NFSs broken model. Although still important, because these are the reasons why we don't need fsync() to actually flush data to disk for example, it can be asynchronous and only needs to add a checkpoint to your log structured filesystem that will be written to disk later, once enough data is buffered or long enough time has passed.
> one cannot build reliable applications and infrastructure on top of a kernel which is lying to the application.
You cannot make reliable systems thinking like that. The point of resilience is __not__ to rely on correctness of kernel's advertised behavior nor correctness of your assumptions about it.
You got it backwards. Those of us who care about reliability would never rely on reliability of a single system to safely store data. And overallocating memory is not even remotely that important compared to everything else that can go wrong on a system.
> It should be obvious to state that if you get rid of 8chan, those people aren't suddenly deradicalized
More importantly, you should ask yourself how they found 8chan. They were using other means of communications that didn't disappear. The invisible force that gathered them together on 8chan is still there and can definitely do that again.
Study political science, propaganda, psychology of advertising, this is something that can make you resilient to propaganda. Just being aware that you may get manipulated can't help you much as you have to be able to spot it effortlessly everywhere.
You seem to misunderstand it. There are less points to intercept traffic at with 1.1.1.1, than without it. Much more feasible to spy on a massive scale, much less privacy and usefulness of client subnet EDNS option completely disappears. In 1.1.1.1 case it's literally irrelevant for privacy whether they do it or not. 1.1.1.1 already hurts privacy massively and not passing client subnet only hurts competing CDNs.
> There is no guarantee the name server they are querying is the same as the server in the A result
That's ok. Let me try to explain a bit more:
Queries to 1.1.1.1 are going over public internet. And even though they are encrypted, they also carry metadata with them, including IP addresses of who is doing them, precise time, rough size, various OS specific stuff, etc. And packets going out to authoritative servers from 1.1.1.1 are in clear text. There is a very tiny window of possible queries out of 1.1.1.1 for encrypted data coming in from some IP address and therefore only a tiny number of possible responses from authoritative servers. Given that and enough intercepted data all over the world it is easy to correlate clear text DNS responses with IP addresses or who got responses from cache and on which popular website ended up, etc.
So, what he claims is that state actors monitor traffic at certain locations, extract subnet information from DNS packets that only large centralized DNS resolvers include when query some authoritative servers that where probed to support that feature. That subnet is not a subnet of an end user IP address, but an IP address of a recursive resolver of that user's ISP. They have to correlate that information with a connection made from that ISP to a web server to track the user. What 1.1.1.1 brings here? State actors now can correlate an actual IP address sending data to 1.1.1.1, with a clear text DNS query going out of it, making tracking more reliable and simple and worse for privacy. And still worse for other CDNs.
Don't take Cloudflare's PR seriously, they are completely full of it. They used to be more honest, but those days are long gone.
It has nothing to do with privacy, as the next thing following DNS resolution is establishing a TCP connection which always leaks full IP address to the same person or organization controlling authoritative servers. Basically EDNS is just a convenient way for DNS-based CDNs to provide a better edge node. But this is directly competing with Cloudflare, so Cloudflare invents excuses not to implement something that helps other CDNs.
For desktop users there should not be any noticeable performance degradation. But they are also likely the ones in the most danger, since they execute random code in their web browsers.
> But I don't see how a random token is any worse than an incrementing one if you're just going to straight up reject requests where the token doesn't match.
No, random tokens are not worse per se, they just have no place in the algorithm Martin described. It's a completely different system. In that system incremental tokens presume a mechanism that gives you a way to have some order of events. And one can rely on that order to decide which requests with which tokens to reject.
It doesn't exist. I think Martin called this out because of the fundamental impossibility to guaranty consensus asynchronously, i.e. with auto-release.
The world you are describing is impossible and part of it already exists precisely because of the power of copyright, not the other way around (models are already screwed and have to give up rights to corporations, they certainly aren't powerful enough to monitor where their images are used, inventors too have to give up rights to corporations and do get their stuff stolen, remember how Google did that? And it was just one public occurrence).