enigmurl

Not yet unfortunately, there is an export to markdown but I'm assuming you're looking for something related to the events. I'm going to work on this and get it out soon

More so the former

Presumably GP was implying that adding a second plane increases the chance of a crash, not claiming that it increases the conseuqences should it happen

Assuming it's a reference to RLHF? Not sure

$1.2 billion per month would be $14.4 billion per year

Would it really be lower on the bot net in the majority of cases? I'd imagine that real users probably wouldn't want to have their entire cpu spent on this.

In general, it's pretty hard to establish that an algorithm is "not useful" for a particular discipline.

I understand that it may be viewed as unpleasant, but ultimately if you install a proxy on your end that the server does not like (say an ad-blocker), I don't think it would be fair for the server to say its suffering a MITM attack. Likewise, even if the client is not happy with the third party the server is requesting, it still doesn't make sense to call it a MITM, IMO.

Man in the middle attack typically implies an unwanted third party, which in this case is not true since Cloudfare is explicitly and voluntarily trusted by the host server. It wouldn't be all that different if the web server had the browserintegrity checks developed themselves.

Isn't the point that Cloudfare is essentially enforcing the rules then?

If it's truly the case that you're paying for Google Search, that would be an even bigger incentive for consumers to leave to a different search engine (in essence, they would be paid to switch).