Hacker News, Distilled

Where Apple Uses WebViews

• Several comments point out that parts of iOS and macOS already use hidden webviews: iCloud sections in Settings, parts of App Store / Apple Store / Music / News / TV, some Mail and Calendar content, and various account/profile pages.
• Some of these areas feel subtly “off” (delayed icon loads, unusual tap highlights), reinforcing the idea that well‑integrated webviews are mostly invisible, while bad ones are noticeable.
• There is disagreement over how much Apple Music and App Store still rely on webviews; some say they were rewritten natively, others still see server‑error pages and web-like behavior.

---

Private Liquid Glass CSS & App Store Rules

• The effect is controlled by a private WKWebView preference (useSystemAppearance); without enabling it via private API, the CSS is ignored.
• Using private APIs is explicitly banned by App Store guidelines, so third‑party apps can’t legally ship this, even though Apple can use it internally.
• Some see this as a typical internal-only OS feature that may later be documented; others view it as a deliberate way for Apple’s own webview-based UIs to look more “native” than competitors’.

---

Is This Anticompetitive? Legal and Policy Debate

• One side calls this a textbook case of leveraging OS control to advantage first‑party apps, drawing parallels to Microsoft’s past use of secret Windows APIs.
• Others argue:
  • Private APIs per se are normal; they only become an antitrust issue when tied to monopoly power and actual harm to competition.
  • Apple’s mobile share and the cosmetic nature of this feature make it unlikely to meet legal thresholds under U.S. “rule of reason” standards.
• A counterargument is that the real harm is cumulative: Apple forbids alternative browser engines on iOS, then withholds capabilities from the only allowed engine.

---

Safari, Web Standards, and Engine Lock‑In

• One thread argues Safari’s standards support has largely caught up and is even better than Firefox in places; Chrome is criticized for non‑standard “EEE” APIs.
• A conflicting thread insists Safari is still “hobbled” by missing modern APIs and, more importantly, that forcing all iOS browsers to use WebKit is the core problem.
• There’s back‑and‑forth over whether nonstandard APIs (e.g., Chrome-only features) are comparable to Apple’s entirely private, App‑Store‑blocked hooks.

---

Liquid Glass Aesthetics, UX, and AR Framing

• Reactions to the new glass look are polarized:
  • Fans like the return of “personality,” clearer button affordances, and nostalgia for Win7/Vista‑style glass.
  • Critics call it unreadable, gelatinous, gaudy, and sometimes buggy or inconsistent with accessibility options (e.g., Reduce Motion/Transparency).
• Some see the overlay‑on‑content UI as aligned with an AR‑centric future; others dismiss this as conjecture, noting weak AR adoption and Vision Pro struggles.

---

Webviews’ Reputation, Performance, and Future

• A “toupee theory” emerges: users only notice bad webviews; seamless ones go unnoticed, so webviews get an unfairly bad reputation.
• Others point out real drawbacks: heavy RAM usage, OOM issues on Android, and poor behavior from many hybrid apps shipped as shortcuts.
• Several commenters suggest Apple built this specifically to make its own webview-heavy apps visually match native Liquid Glass, while third parties are pushed toward full native UI.
• Some hope Apple will eventually expose the CSS property in Safari, to avoid sites re‑implementing the effect in slower, CPU‑heavy ways; whether that will happen is currently unclear.

Performance and loading strategies

• Some advocate downloading, subsetting, and base64‑embedding fonts in CSS to avoid FOUC; others argue this can delay first paint and increase “flash of no content,” especially on slow connections.
• Putting large base64 fonts directly in CSS makes stylesheets heavier and, if inlined per page, harder to cache. It’s also worse for users who block fonts or are on unreliable networks.
• Variable fonts and @supports (font-variation-settings: normal) are suggested for performance and flexibility but were largely missing from the original article.

Ease or difficulty of self-hosting

• One camp says modern self‑hosting is trivial: download TTF/OTF, optionally convert to WOFF2, add @font-face, done. Old “bulletproof” multi‑format syntax is mostly obsolete.
• Another camp reports substantial friction: Google’s dynamic CSS, multiple variants, unicode ranges, and variable font configs make it non‑obvious which files and declarations are needed for full cross‑platform support.

Privacy, legal, and policy concerns

• Many want to self‑host to avoid leaking visitor IPs and referers to Google, and to comply with GDPR rulings that consider Google Fonts hotlinking a PII leak without consent.
• Google’s FAQ says Fonts doesn’t set cookies or build profiles “for targeted advertising,” but commenters distrust this, noting profiles can already exist and policies can change.

CDN vs self-host tradeoffs

• Since browser caches are siloed by domain, public CDNs no longer give big cross‑site cache wins; self‑hosting (often behind Cloudflare or similar) can be as fast or faster.
• Some report Google’s fonts CDN adding noticeable latency; others think using Google is simpler than maintaining their own static hosting.
• A few still prefer linking to Google for perceived reliability and the chance that fonts are already cached, though others note the domain‑siloing undercuts this.

Tools and workflows mentioned

• Tools to simplify self‑hosting and subsetting: Glypht (Google catalog + subsetting), Fontimize (SSG integration), google‑webfonts‑helper, FontSource (npm + jsDelivr/CDN), plus Google’s own woff2 converter and GitHub font repos.
• Bunny Fonts and other third‑party CDNs are suggested as privacy‑friendlier Google Fonts replacements.

Generational and knowledge-gap discussion

• Older developers express shock that “download font and link it in CSS” isn’t seen as obvious, framing this as a loss of basic web literacy.
• Others argue the ecosystem’s complexity (tooling, Discord‑siloed knowledge, build chains) explains why such “plumbing” topics need explicit tutorials.
• Some generational stereotyping (millennials vs Gen‑Z/Alpha) appears; younger participants push back, noting they are simply earlier in the learning curve.

Fonts, design, and UX opinions

• Several complain about unreadable blue links on dark backgrounds and overuse of custom fonts when system fonts could suffice.
• There’s tension between site owners wanting branding/“best fonts” and users wanting control over fonts and accessibility (e.g., skepticism about ligature coding fonts and the proliferation of bespoke webfonts).

Legitimacy of the PayPal Domain & Phishing Risk

• Many were initially convinced paypal-corp.com was a phishing domain due to the odd hostname and barebones page.
• Others confirmed it is linked from paypal.com and part of PayPal’s broader corporate/IR domain mess (pypl.com, paypal-inc.com, etc.).
• Several argue this fragmented domain strategy and prior PayPal-branded phishing-style emails desensitize users and make real phishing easier.
• A side thread defends separate domains as a security practice (cookie isolation, CMS compromise blast radius).

Centralization vs Crypto’s Original Promise

• Recurrent theme: crypto was supposed to remove middlemen like PayPal, so a PayPal crypto layer feels contradictory.
• One camp: most people prioritize convenience, which tends to re‑centralize systems; corporate custodians are inevitable.
• Others argue decentralization still matters as an option: centralized services can exist as long as you can exit to self-custody.
• Critics say this shows the “decentralize money” ideal largely failed; crypto is now mostly a speculative and fee-extraction layer.

Stablecoins, US Debt & Global Effects

• Debate over whether stablecoins are effectively 0% financing for US debt or just another channel for normal Treasury demand.
• Some see US‑blessed stablecoins (and the GENIUS Act) as a strategic win: more demand for Treasuries, stronger dollarization, more power over weaker currencies.
• Others note the total stablecoin market is still small relative to US debt and question whether reserves are always real, citing Tether.
• Use in inflationary/unstable countries is viewed both as a lifeline for individuals and a further erosion of local monetary sovereignty.

Trust in PayPal as Custodian

• Very strong sentiment against holding balances (fiat or crypto) in PayPal: repeated stories of arbitrary freezes, months‑long lockouts, and poor/outsourced support.
• Multiple commenters emphasize PayPal is not an FDIC‑insured bank in the US; in the EU it has a banking license but no deposit guarantee.
• Recommended pattern: use PayPal only as a pass‑through (receive, then withdraw immediately; link a secondary bank; avoid debit cards and crypto custody).

Convenience, Protections & Actual Use Cases

• Some defend PayPal as excellent for consumers and small merchants: easy integration, no card data handling, decent dispute resolution, and frictionless checkout.
• Others counter that traditional credit cards and chargebacks already provide similar protection without PayPal’s account‑level power.
• Several note PayPal already supported BTC/ETH trading; the “new” piece is deeper integration and stablecoin/peer‑to‑peer flows.

Scope, Marketing & Regulation

• The slogan “anyone, anywhere” is widely mocked given the rollout is US‑only with KYC and documentation requirements; called typical US‑centric marketing.
• Some note the move is less technical than regulatory: PayPal has had the plumbing, but waited for clearer US stablecoin rules and a more crypto‑friendly administration.

Practicality of Crypto Payments

• Disagreement on whether BTC/ETH are practical to spend: some say fees and volatility make them poor currencies; others note ETH and especially L2s are now cheap for simple transfers.
• Several argue stablecoins, not BTC, are where real payment volume and B2B cross‑border use is emerging; PayPal is trying to tap into that trend.

Context and Accessibility of the Essay

• Several readers find the essay intellectually compelling but context-heavy and hard to approach without background in 1991 Soviet politics and political theory.
• Some note that younger readers lack historical grounding in the August Coup, Gorbachev/Yeltsin, and Cold War ideologies, making the intro feel opaque.
• Others say it’s readable if you already know the late‑Soviet and European political landscape and see it as a precursor to “end of history” narratives.

Shifting and Collapsing Political Labels

• Many comments echo the essay’s claim: traditional left/right, conservative/liberal, socialist/communist labels have blurred or inverted.
• In the US, “conservative” and “liberal” are seen as brands attached to party coalitions, not coherent ideologies; both parties are said to have morphed repeatedly.
• European vs US meanings of “liberal” are contrasted: classical free‑market, small‑state liberalism vs US “liberal” as culturally left.
• Some argue left/right still track attitudes toward hierarchy and state power; others see those axes as hopelessly entangled with authoritarian/libertarian and tribal identity.

Battles Over Definitions: Socialism, Fascism, Woke, etc.

• Long subthread on “socialism”:
  • One side stretches it to almost any collective or state action (“when government does stuff”).
  • Others insist on the classical “social ownership of the means of production.”
  • Disagreement over whether markets can be “socialist” and whether communist theory reserved “socialism” vs “communism” as stages.
• Similar definitional fights occur over “fascism,” “Nazi,” and “woke,” with repeated claims that these words are now primarily slurs or empty tribal markers.
• Some think this semantic decay is exactly what Kondylis described: terms become propaganda tools rather than analytical categories.

Populism, Party Dynamics, and Tribal Psychology

• Commenters link the essay to the rise of populism and party realignments since ~2009, claiming parties are “unmoored” from historical platforms.
• US politics is compared to Roman chariot factions: team loyalty eclipses coherent ideology; “true conservative” often just means “what I liked when I was young.”
• Several emphasize temperament and personality (conformism, contrarianism, need for tribe) as more stable than ideology in predicting alignments.

Alternative Frameworks and Meta-Reflections

• Suggestions to replace left/right with other axes: open vs closed, hierarchy vs equality, or focus on localist models like communalism and democratic confederalism.
• Some extend the essay’s point to language in general: as political and social stakes rise, terms become more arbitrary and weaponized, drifting toward meaninglessness.

Seasonal Storage Thought Experiment

• Many commenters note the author’s premise—storing all summer surplus for winter use—highlights how extreme and impractical true seasonal storage is for homes.
• A 1 MWh–scale battery is technically possible in physical size but economically absurd for most households once cost, cycle life, and space are considered.
• Several argue you’d instead overbuild generation and size batteries for days or weeks, not months, then accept grid or generator backup for rare worst cases.

Solar vs Battery Sizing and Cost

• Panels are now often cheaper per added kWh than extra battery; for many, roof or yard area, not module price, is the limit.
• Diminishing returns: small batteries (5–15 kWh) plus a sensible array already cover most daily shifting and peak-rate avoidance; additional storage quickly delivers less incremental benefit.
• Some users share data: modest arrays plus 10–20 kWh storage can cover large fractions of annual use but still fall short in deep winter or long cloudy spells.

EVs, V2G, and Mobile Storage

• Several foresee EVs (≈60–100 kWh packs) as key household storage, via vehicle‑to‑load/grid.
• Others worry about added cycle wear and premature degradation; economics depend on battery lifespan and tariff spreads.

Fire, Safety, and Chemistries

• Concerns about large lithium packs as fire/explosion hazards; comparisons to stored propane, heating oil, diesel.
• Distinction made between volatile Li‑ion/po chemistries and more stable LFP, sodium‑ion, saltwater or sand‑based systems; placement in sheds or separate structures is common advice.
• Some note that fossil fuels carry their own risks (explosions, spills) but are socially normalized.

Grid, Community Storage, and Equity

• Strong disagreement on off‑grid futures: some are fully off‑grid and happy; others say most people prefer reliable grids and economies of scale.
• Worries that affluent households exiting or minimizing grid use push rising infrastructure costs onto poorer non‑solar users; countered by claims that tariffs and fixed fees can adapt.
• Community‑scale or substation‑scale storage is argued to be more efficient than every house owning huge batteries; the “grid as virtual seasonal storage” via net metering is emphasized where policies allow.

Alternatives and Design Tricks

• Alternatives discussed: generators (diesel, propane, gas), hydropower on streams, thermal/seasonal heat storage (sand, basalt, big hot‑water “thermoses”), hydrogen or synthetic fuels, gravity storage, but most are seen as niche or less economical than batteries today.
• Multiple anecdotes show that careful load reduction, passive house design, smart orientation (east/west panels), and modest batteries can achieve high (70–90%) self‑sufficiency without chasing full seasonal storage.

Perceived Hypocrisy and Exemptions

• Many comments focus on claims that EU/ChatControl-style proposals exempt politicians or security services while surveilling everyone else.
• This is framed as “privacy for me, not for thee,” reinforcing distrust and calls for leaking or exposing officials’ own communications as a “taste” of their policy.
• Some point out that only state security staff, not all politicians, are formally exempt, but others note that this is exactly the group that should never be exempt.

Encryption as Privacy / Human Right

• Strong view: private conversation is a fundamental human right, and in the digital era that implies strong encryption.
• References to UN and EU human-rights texts show privacy and correspondence protections but no explicit mention of encryption, which commenters see as a gap being exploited.
• Several argue encryption is just the modern equivalent of sealed letters or closed rooms.

Technical and Security Arguments

• Repeated claim: you can’t “ban math.” Outlawing or weakening encryption just pushes serious criminals and state actors to bespoke tools, steganography, or one-time pads.
• Backdoors are seen as a national security liability: any systematic access path will eventually leak or be abused for espionage, blackmail, or political manipulation.
• Some warn that banning mainstream encrypted apps reduces “cover traffic,” making remaining encrypted channels easier to target.

Effectiveness Against Crime and Abuse

• Skepticism that mass scanning or mandated access would meaningfully improve investigations, with examples (e.g. Epstein emails) where unencrypted evidence already existed but wasn’t used for years.
• Others note honeypot “secure” services have been effective against criminals, but a counterpoint cites legal setbacks and improved criminal OPSEC.

Law, History, and Constitutional Friction

• Comparisons to postal secrecy: historically, governments transported sealed mail without inspecting contents; today’s push to scan all digital messages is seen as a break from that norm.
• EU, national constitutions, and conventions are quoted both as supporting privacy and as containing broad exceptions (“national security,” “public safety”) that can legalize wide surveillance.

Broader Political and Democratic Concerns

• Many see ChatControl-like efforts as steps toward a surveillance state and a betrayal of democratic principles, potentially fueling support for extremist politics.
• Some argue if any group’s communications should be monitored, it should be public servants and officeholders, not the general population.

Economics & Incentives of Chargebacks

• Commenters note that card networks and banks are structurally aligned with cardholders, not merchants: the bank has a direct relationship with the customer and minimal downside for passing pain to the merchant.
• Chargebacks and associated fees are treated as part of the “cost of doing business,” especially for card-not-present (online) transactions where protecting cardholder trust is paramount.
• For small amounts (e.g. $10), systems are optimized to auto-resolve rather than invest human time; merchants are expected to price in a non-zero level of fraud.

Merchant Experiences & Strategies

• Many SaaS operators report a very low but non-zero rate of “friendly fraud” (legit use followed by dispute), even with easy cancellation, reminders, and lenient refunds.
• Stripe’s fee structure makes small-charge disputes almost always net-negative; some merchants automatically refund recent renewals or don’t contest low-value disputes.
• A few discuss fraud patterns (stolen cards, card testing) but say most problematic cases are customers avoiding blame or internal miscommunication (e.g., corporate cards).

Customer Behavior, Distrust & Dark Patterns

• Several argue that rising chargeback use is a rational response to years of hostile cancellation flows (gyms, media, some SaaS) and unresponsive support.
• Some consumers openly say they go straight to the bank if cancellation or refund feels like any friction at all. Others see chargebacks as a last resort after failed support.
• There’s criticism that even “good” SaaS often has confusing pricing (e.g., hidden minimum seats) or non-prorated refunds, which can feel deceptive and fuel disputes.

Cancellation UX & Possible Reforms

• Strong sentiment that unsubscribing should be at least as easy as subscribing, ideally via one-click links in renewal emails and clear, in-app cancel CTAs.
• Multiple suggestions for bank-side “cancel subscription” controls in apps, similar to PayPal recurring payments or India’s mandate portal / UPI autopay, which simply stop future charges.
• Some note Apple’s App Store model: Apple absorbs chargeback complexity in exchange for a high commission; others see this as protection, some as “prison.”

Responsibility & Evidence Debate

• One camp stresses that merchants voluntarily accepted card rules: logs and ToS don’t prove cardholder authorization, and you can’t “prove a negative” from the customer side.
• Others emphasize that banks rarely require robust proof from customers and effectively enable small-scale fraud, while merchants have almost no realistic path to “winning” disputes.

HN mechanics and “second chance” submissions

• Several comments note that obscure or “weird but great” links often die quickly on HN’s newest page.
• The Leatherman story resurfaced through HN’s “pool” / “second chance” / “invited to repost” mechanisms, which periodically revive overlooked submissions.
• Some users share similar experiences of having niche posts later invited back to the front page.

Leatherman as figure, media, and local lore

• Multiple people recommend a long-form NYT Magazine article and a Daily podcast episode for a more emotional, in-depth treatment than the short Wikipedia entry.
• Commenters from Connecticut recall him as a local legend; there are hiking trails to “his” caves, where visitors reflect on his life.
• Others connect him to the tradition of “holy fools” and point to similar eccentric historical figures and oddball local characters.

Vagrancy laws, homelessness, and social tolerance

• Users are struck that towns explicitly exempted Leatherman from vagrancy laws, effectively allowing “one special vagrant.”
• One view: he was tolerated because he had some money, didn’t steal, and wasn’t disruptive, unlike stereotypical modern street populations.
• Counterpoint: society criminalizes conditions (homelessness, vagrancy) instead of behaviors (theft, harassment), which disproportionately punishes the already vulnerable.
• Discussion touches on how easy it is legally to prove “sleeping rough” versus proving specific offenses.

Romanticizing vagabond life vs. its reality

• Several commenters initially find Leatherman’s lifestyle deeply appealing: slow pace, routine physical tasks, time-rich existence outside modern pressures.
• Others, including currently or formerly homeless people, describe homelessness as psychologically crushing: constant insecurity, stigma, danger, and lack of any “safe harbour.”
• Some distinguish between voluntary, well-resourced “adventure” (bike touring, long camping) and involuntary homelessness with no easy exit.
• Broader thread on freedom vs. commitment: more leisure often requires being homeless or rich, with partial alternatives like moving to low-cost areas, part‑time/contract work, or FIRE.
• Subthreads debate whether modern comfort is truly “easier,” the role of physical hardship, and the value (and failures) of safety nets like insurance.

Brand confusion and cultural references

• Many initially assume the thread is about Leatherman multitools; it’s clarified the company is named after its founder, not the vagabond.
• Jokes about what a “Vagabond” Leatherman tool would include, pop‑culture references (Pearl Jam song, Tolkien, zombie riffs), and an idea for an ultra‑endurance event following his route.

Dependency Tree & Cargo Semver Behavior

• Commenters inspect cargo tree and note the project has only three direct dependencies (ndarray, rand, rand_distr), seen as lean for a non-trivial project.
• Discussion dives deep into Cargo’s version resolution:
  • Dependency specifications like 0.9, 0.9.3 are treated as semver ranges with an implicit ^ operator.
  • Cargo tries to unify to a single version per major (or “0.x minor”) version; multiple versions appear only when constraints are semver-incompatible (e.g., 0.8 and 0.7.1).
  • Exact pinning with =0.9.3 is possible but discouraged for libraries because it fragments dependency graphs.

“From Scratch” & Use of Libraries

• Some see the small, focused dependency set as a sign of quality.
• Others argue that “from scratch” is overstated if core operations are delegated to existing libraries, but also note reusing libraries is sensible and reimplementation isn’t inherently better.

Code Readability, Style & Possible AI Generation

• Many praise the code’s readability and straightforward structure, contrasting it with more complex, generic-heavy Rust.
• Others criticize it as overly procedural and not idiomatic “modern Rust” (few iterators/enums).
• Multiple commenters suspect README and portions of the code are LLM-generated (“vibe-coded”): telltale comments, emojis, file naming, and commit style.
• Debate whether AI-generated Rust will “rot” code quality; some say it’s fine if humans clean up and focus effort on the hard parts, others say sloppy comments and duplicated patterns reveal shallow understanding.

Training Data, Behavior & Toy Nature

• The model’s training data is tiny and embedded directly in main.rs (dozens of factual statements).
• When prompted off-distribution, it quickly breaks down into nonsense outputs, reinforcing that this is a learning toy, not a usable LLM.
• Suggestions include using public instruction and text datasets from Hugging Face and adding numerical gradient checks.

Rust vs Python: Tooling, Ecosystem & Performance

• Several express relief at “just cargo run” compared to repeated stories of Python dependency hell.
• A long subthread debates:
  • Whether easy dependency inclusion (Cargo/npm style) is a feature or a trap that encourages dependency bloat and security risk.
  • Centralized package registries vs more intentional, frictionful dependency models (Zig/Odin-style).
  • Python packaging’s longstanding problems vs improvements with pyproject.toml and tools like uv (often described as “cargo for Python”).
  • Some argue Python’s ecosystem is fundamentally flawed; others defend it as the de facto ML lingua franca whose C/C++ backends handle performance.

Rust in the ML Stack & Future Work

• Commenters are excited to see a pure-Rust transformer and note Rust’s memory safety helps avoid subtle bugs (e.g., buffer overflows in transformers).
• A few suggest GPU support, proper tokenization (e.g., BPE), and fixing architectural issues (e.g., reusing the same transformer block instance instead of separate layers).
• Broader discussion touches on whether more of the AI ecosystem will or should migrate from Python to Rust/C++/other languages; consensus in the thread is mixed.

Study scope and limitations

• Commenters highlight that the paper uses historical cohorts of men born 1895–1934, with deaths recorded around 1965.
• The longevity gap shrinks over time: ~10 years for the earliest cohort down to ~4 years for the latest.
• Several argue the sample is small (~1,500 Amish men across four cohorts) and that stronger demographic studies exist; they see this as interesting but “marginal” evidence.
• Others note confounders like the Great Depression and world wars affecting non-Amish male mortality, especially in Europe.

Diet, raw milk, and nutrition

• Many attribute the longevity difference to fewer processed foods, more whole/“natural” foods, and high physical activity.
• There’s a long subthread on raw milk:
  • One side calls raw dairy dangerous “poison,” pointing to historical outbreaks and modern data.
  • Others counter that humans consumed raw milk for millennia, risk is context-dependent (farm vs factory), and that the absolute risk to healthy adults is low.
• Debate extends to whether humans are “supposed” to drink cow’s milk at all, with conflicting claims about health effects (liver fat, immunoglobulins, lactose, etc.) and links to studies showing both harms and benefits.

Lifestyle, technology, and community

• Amish advantages discussed: constant manual labor, little to no screen time, more time outdoors, cohesive family/social networks, and selective adoption of technology (e.g., skepticism about farm chemicals).
• Some point out Amish diets are heavy in carbs, fats, and sweets; they argue this would be unhealthy without the high-activity lifestyle.

Comparisons: EU, Hutterites, monks, eunuchs

• Some note EU male life expectancy now exceeds modern Amish estimates, implying you can get better longevity without an 1800s-style life, though others question if this holds for the historical cohorts studied.
• A Hutterite study is cited: major differences vs surrounding populations seem driven by lower smoking and STDs (lung and cervical cancer).
• Monks and eunuchs are mentioned as other groups with potentially longer lifespans, though evidence and mechanisms (hormones vs lifestyle vs social role) are debated.

Healthcare systems, obesity, and prevention

• Several argue US–EU life expectancy gaps stem more from obesity, hypertension, and chronic disease than from acute medical care access.
• There’s disagreement over how much a “healthcare system” should include prevention, education, regulation (e.g., HFCS), and social policy.
• GLP‑1 drugs (e.g., Ozempic) are discussed as lifespan-extending via weight and diabetes control, with some caution about unknown long-term effects.

Autonomy, Self-Governance, and “Pet” Status

• Major thread around whether Culture citizens truly have autonomy and mental sovereignty or are effectively pampered pets of the Minds.
• One side: Culture allows enormous personal freedom (choose bodies, gender, lifestyle, sub-societies, even emigrate), with minimal coercion (e.g., “slap drones” instead of prison), so autonomy is preserved as much as any real society ever has.
• Opposing view: Minds engineer language, biology, and options so thoroughly that humans retain only the illusion of choice and cannot meaningfully shape civilization; freedom largely ends at the skin.
• Some argue true autonomy requires open-ended psychological flexibility and capacity for self-directed value change; if engineered citizens still have that, the system may be ethical despite near-universal contentment.

Utopia, Meaning, and the Need for Struggle

• Recurrent concern that post-scarcity removes “meaningful struggle,” making life tedious and undermining democracy/self-rule.
• Counterargument: many Culture citizens pursue extreme experiences (lava rafting, elective risk, body mods, art, exploration) and can even choose death; boredom is optional, not inevitable.
• Philosophical references (e.g., Isaiah Berlin, Dostoevsky) used to argue that any fixed utopia risks flattening value pluralism and ending “history.”

Special Circumstances, Edge Cases, and Narrative Bias

• Several commenters stress that the novels mostly depict edge cases (war, SC operations, eccentrics), analogous to judging England from James Bond; ordinary Culture life is largely offstage.
• Disagreement over SC’s function: sincere tool because Minds hesitate to get their “hands dirty” vs. a pressure valve and playground for people who want agency and manipulation, with real power still residing in Minds.

Minds, Alignment, and Power Structures

• Consensus that Mind-level AIs are so superior that human-only polities couldn’t compete; question becomes how to live with them, not whether.
• Discussion of rogue or eccentric Minds, subliming, and whether alignment is “solved”: some Minds go rogue or depart, but are mostly tolerated unless existentially dangerous.
• Analogy drawn between how we enforce human social norms and how Minds constrain “grabby” citizens: both adapt because they can’t win against overwhelmingly stronger incumbents.

Critique of the Article’s Canon Use

• Multiple readers say the blog post misremembers or invents details (fake ship names, dubious statistics on eccentrics, overconfident claims about sociopaths, SC, and simulations).
• The author of the post appears in-thread acknowledging reliance on faulty memory and LLM assistance and concedes some errors, while defending the broader “oppositional” reading as intentional.

Keyword/Typo Squatting and Clones Everywhere

• Commenters note pervasive keyword and typo squatting across Apple, Microsoft, and Google stores, not just for “AI Chat” but any popular app.
• Example: searching the Microsoft Store for WinDirStat returns many dubious clones; the real project lives on GitHub/the web and isn’t in the store.
• Users are increasingly “trained” to trust app stores over the web, so legitimate sites and repos are never found. A common workaround mentioned: append “github” to search queries.

GitHub vs App Stores for Normal Users

• Some find GitHub-based distribution confusing: source archives alongside binaries, no obvious “download here” button.
• Others argue that official download pages are simple enough and that alternative install instructions (winget, scoop) are optional.
• The deeper issue: non-technical users will look in the store first, where clones dominate.

Copycats, Trademarks, and Store Inaction

• Developers with niche but popular apps report floods of copycats now appearing ahead of them in search, with Apple doing nothing despite reports.
• Trademark registration (federal vs cheaper state-level) is discussed as a potential lever to get platforms to act, though effectiveness is unclear.

Review Process: Strict but Ineffective

• Widely reported pattern: legitimate apps receive arbitrary or opaque rejections and long delays, while low-effort or scammy clones slide through.
• Several explanations are floated: extreme skew toward low-quality submissions, quota-driven reviewers, possible bribery, and incentives aligned with revenue (IAP-heavy “casino” apps).
• Many argue the system simultaneously delivers too many false positives (blocking good apps) and false negatives (letting in shovelware), undermining Apple/Google’s justification for their 30% cut.

Walled Gardens, Control, and Discoverability

• One framing: app stores act as collective bargaining agents for users; they get criticized whenever they fail to protect quality or exclude good apps.
• Others counter that most visible complaints come from developers, implying platforms are serving users “well enough.”
• Strong skepticism that Apple would allow alternative front-ends or curated indices precisely because discoverability is a key point of control and revenue.

Curation, Ranking, and Better Models

• Many see the Mac App Store as a “failed” or embarrassing marketplace: low trust, little serious software, dominated by clones. iOS is viewed as only marginally better.
• Steam, Linux distro repos, and (to some extent) SetApp are cited as superior curation models: better ranking, reputation, and stronger incentives for quality.
• Suggested mitigations: reputation signals (“by OpenAI” vs unknown), better search and filtering (e.g., CarPlay support), Hamming-distance constraints on app names, and stricter enforcement against near-duplicates.

Security Narrative and the Web Comparison

• Commenters argue the “walled garden = safety” story is overstated: fraudulent password managers, ChatGPT lookalikes, and subscription scams routinely pass review.
• The open web often surfaces the genuine products first, while official stores prominently feature clones and paid placements.
• Some conclude that real safety comes more from sandboxing and permissions than from store gatekeeping, and call for sideloading and third-party stores on mobile.

Shovelware as a Structural Outcome

• Several see current conditions (AI tools, low dev cost, “get into AI at any cost” hype) as inevitably driving massive amounts of low-quality apps.
• That, combined with weak curation, turns both mobile and desktop app stores into “flea markets” where finding trustworthy software is increasingly difficult.

Sophistication and Lifecycle of Pig-Butchering Scams

• Commenters were struck by how long and thorough these scams are: bonding phases of 3–11+ months, with daily chat, video calls, and carefully staged “proof” (matching clothes, realistic portfolios, real-time market prices).
• Scammers use professional tooling (CRM-like systems, Zendesk, multiple WhatsApp accounts, on-call video “actors”) and highly polished fake investment platforms, sometimes allowing small withdrawals or gift cards.
• People shared similar encounters via Telegram, SMS, Twitter/X DMs, and deepfake “Elon Musk” pitches, often hyper-local or personalized enough to unsettle technically savvy users.

Victims: Not Just the Stereotypical Elderly or Uneducated

• Readers were surprised the study’s victims skewed relatively young and well-educated.
• Multiple anecdotes described engineers, professionals, and high-functioning people scammed when under unusual stress (immigration issues, tax fears, loneliness, relationship desperation).
• Several stories involved devastating consequences: ruined finances, divorces, and in one case a victim dying shortly after losing everything.

Moral Debate: Engaging vs Ignoring Scammers

• One camp argues: waste scammers’ time to reduce their conversion rates and make the business less profitable.
• Another counters: many front-line scammers are trafficked and punished based purely on “numbers”; deliberately dragging things out may worsen their suffering without meaningfully shrinking the industry.
• There’s disagreement whether refusing to waste their time effectively means “letting them scam someone else,” with no clear consensus on the least-harmful strategy.

Trafficking, Geography, and Scale

• Several comments highlight “scam centers” in Myanmar, Cambodia, and elsewhere: effectively slave compounds with 17‑hour days, beatings, threats, and even killings when quotas aren’t met.
• Some dispute where the main targets are (Chinese vs Westerners) and where operations are based (Myanmar/Cambodia vs newer hubs like Cyprus), but agree the problem is transnational and deeply corrupt.
• Loss estimates conflict: the paper cites ~$75B since 2020, while other sources mentioned in the thread claim up to ~$500B/year.

Crypto, Regulation, and Infrastructure

• Many scams are framed as crypto investments; commenters argue crypto’s on/off ramps and lack of regulation enable this, while others say the “crypto” label is mostly a lure and any fake asset could be used.
• AML/KYC is seen as both a partial safeguard (harder to move funds) and a new attack surface (outsourced KYC databases leaking sensitive identity data).

Prevention, Education, and Terminology

• Suggestions include teaching scam-resistance/critical thinking in schools, always out-of-band verifying large transfers, and using trusts/guardianship for vulnerable relatives.
• Some dislike the term “pig-butchering” as demeaning to victims; Interpol’s call to retire it is noted. Many readers had only just learned what the term means.

Orthogonality, binary vectors, and quasi-orthogonality

• Thread debates “orthogonal” binary vectors: strict orthogonality via dot product vs “no shared 1-bits” vs XOR over GF(2).
• Several people note you can’t have more than n mutually orthogonal vectors in n dimensions, but you can have many quasi-orthogonal bitstrings (small overlaps).
• One proposal: use long sparse bit vectors (e.g. 1000 bits with 10 ones per concept) so many concepts can co-exist in a single vector with low overlap, akin to coding theory / spherical codes.

JL lemma, superposition, and sparse autoencoders

• Commenters connect the Johnson–Lindenstrauss (JL) lemma and “near-orthogonality” to the superposition hypothesis and Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) in mechanistic interpretability.
• SAEs try to recover sparse, nearly-orthogonal “features” from dense activations; this matches the idea of many quasi-orthogonal concepts in a high‑dimensional space.

Capacity of high-dimensional spaces and ‘number of concepts’

• Some intuitions are combinatorial (2^k, 3^k, factorial counts), but others push back that this confuses “possible vectors” with meaningful “concepts.”
• One camp thinks 1k–20k dimensions is more than enough for human‑scale knowledge; another says the article overestimates capacity because what matters is preserving relative distances and rankings, not just almost-orthogonality.
• A separate critique calls the “10^200 concepts in 12k dimensions” claim absurd in information-theoretic terms and conflating geometry with Shannon capacity.

Topological vs metric preservation and folding

• A long subthread distinguishes JL’s guarantees for finite point sets from embedding the entire underlying manifold (Takens/Whitney/Sauer–Yorke).
• Argument: with fixed dimension k, refining resolution inevitably causes “folding” — distant regions of the true manifold map close together, potentially explaining some LLM pathologies.
• Others ask for concrete empirical examples and suggest this may be a theoretical rather than dominant practical issue.

How LLMs actually store concepts

• Multiple comments stress that models don’t assign one dimension per concept or enforce orthogonality; “understanding” emerges from the whole network, non-linearities, and attention, not just raw embedding geometry.
• KV cache and many layers massively expand effective representational space beyond a single 12k‑dim vector.
• Some note that non-linearities (e.g. softmax, GeLU) and normalization mean vectors need not be orthogonal; you can disambiguate many items even in low dimensions.

Peer review, blog papers, and AI-written style

• Long debate on blog-style mechanistic interpretability work: high impact and widely cited vs “sloppy,” analogy-heavy, and lacking formal peer review.
• Several argue ML conference peer review is currently dysfunctional; others say formal review would still force clearer definitions and less hand‑wavy claims.
• Distinct subthread complains the article’s tone feels like LLM-generated “AI slop”: overuse of superlatives, formulaic structure, and internal inconsistencies (e.g., misinterpreted constants, spherical-code-like arguments).
• Counterpoint: using an LLM for wording doesn’t invalidate the underlying math or experiments, though it can mask errors and erode trust.

Semantics vs syntax in LLMs

• One view: LLMs don’t contain “real-world concepts,” only syntactic token relationships; any semantics live in human interpretation.
• Others counter that models handle homonyms and category judgments in ways that align with semantic distinctions, and that syntax-only pattern matching is too weak an explanation.
• No consensus: some insist “reasoning” talk is overclaim; others see emergent semantic structure in embeddings and behavior.

Miscellaneous points and open questions

• Questions about what actually enforces (near-)orthogonality during training go unanswered; it’s implied to be an emergent consequence of loss, architecture, and normalization.
• Some argue there aren’t “billions of human concepts” in the strict philosophical sense, so capacity claims may be solving the wrong problem.
• A late comment notes tension between this theory-heavy “huge capacity” narrative and empirical work finding limited semantic capacity for some embedding uses; the reconciliation is left unclear.

Context and timing

• Policy is from April 2024; some argue it predates a “step change” in coding agents (Claude Code, o1/o3, newer GPT/Claude models) and would look outdated soon.
• Others push back that “AI for coding just improved again” is said every month, and that step-changes don’t automatically invalidate a cautious stance.

Ethical, copyright, and environmental concerns

• Gentoo cites copyright-violating training data, high energy/water use, labor impacts, and spam/scam enablement.
• Several commenters say these issues are overgeneralized or selectively applied: email, video streaming, flights, and automation software also have large footprints or harm potential.
• There is debate over whether training on copyrighted data is fair use; some point to recent US rulings and settlements but note global law and acquisition methods (e.g. torrents) remain contentious.
• Some see the policy as ideologically motivated; others respond that FOSS itself is ideological and ethics-based reasoning is legitimate.

Code quality, review burden, and project health

• Gentoo’s quality concern resonates strongly: LLMs produce plausible but wrong code, increasing reviewer workload and risking subtle bugs.
• Example from LLVM: a large AI-assisted PR with >100 review comments is described as both excellent personal learning and a significant burden on reviewers.
• Maintainers worry about being flooded with “AI slop” PRs by inexperienced contributors or resume-builders, effectively a soft DDoS, citing curl’s experience with AI-generated bug reports.
• Some argue LLMs surface preexisting governance weaknesses (poor controls on large, low-quality submissions) rather than create new ones.

Policy scope, consistency, and enforcement

• Critics call the policy poorly scoped: “AI” is undefined (does it include autocomplete, translation, small models?), and many stated harms also apply to non-AI tools.
• Others reply that in a volunteer project you can simply reject contributors who rule‑lawyer the edge cases; the policy mainly empowers maintainers to close low-effort LLM PRs.
• Enforcement is acknowledged as mostly honor-system: well-reviewed AI-assisted code is indistinguishable; the policy targets obvious, low-effort use.
• Some fear a chilling effect on legitimate contributors or see the stance as anti‑innovation; others see it as prudent risk management for a critical, long‑lived distro.

What’s Actually New Here (or Not)

• Many commenters argue the “grapevine plastic” is just another cellulose film, similar in outcome to cellophane / early movie film / rayon, whose clarity and flexibility have been known for a century.
• Others note the paper’s real novelty appears to be a rayon-like process using less harsh chemicals, not the basic material itself.
• Some defend the work as useful incremental research and a good example of turning agricultural waste into higher‑value products.

Material Properties and Use Cases

• Key metrics from the paper cited: ~84% transparency, 15–18 MPa tensile strength, and biodegradation in 17 days in moist soil.
• Several people see potential for short‑lived packaging (produce bags, inner wraps) where rapid breakdown is a feature.
• Others say 17 days is too fast; degradation is continuous, so a film that decomposes that quickly might start weakening or shedding into food well before disposal.
• Moisture and heat resistance are flagged as critical; lack of robust waterproofing is presented as the main reason cellulose hasn’t displaced plastics.

Plastic Pollution: Where to Focus

• One camp claims consumer packaging is a sideshow compared to industrial waste, fishing gear, and mismanaged “recycling” exports; they see projects like this as “ecomasturbation” that diverts attention from bigger levers.
• Another camp counters that any reduction of single‑use plastics helps, especially items prone to littering (bags, wraps); they also stress upstream volume reduction, not just ocean cleanup.
• There’s debate over burning plastics: some say modern incinerators are a “slam dunk”; others highlight toxins, heavy metals in mixed waste, and greenhouse gases.

Economics, Scale, and Grape Supply

• Skeptics doubt grapevine waste can scale meaningfully versus global plastic output; vines are geographically limited and pruning waste is a relatively small, periodic stream.
• Broader question raised: why so many “green materials” are announced once and never seen again—answers include poor economics, manual processes, and lack of industrial incentives.

Policy, Responsibility, and Behavior

• Strong disagreement over whether corporations or consumers bear primary responsibility for plastic waste.
• Multiple examples of bag bans (UK, others) show that simple policy can rapidly normalize reusables, though some argue impacts are marginal relative to upstream plastic use.
• Several insist that without regulation, lobbying and cheap fossil‑based plastics will keep alternatives like this on the margins.

Shrinkflation, Trust, and Pricing

• Many commenters are frustrated that packages are shrinking instead of prices simply rising. They see it as deceptive and “enshittifying,” especially when physical tricks (recessed trays, changed stacking, “value size” labels) hide the loss.
• Some think consumers rarely notice net weight, only that products run out faster, and most don’t change buying behavior, which is why shrinkflation persists.
• Unit-price labels are seen as a partial defense, but often inconsistent: different units (per kg vs per piece vs per volume), missing on sale tags, or too small to be useful.

Boxed Mixes vs From-Scratch

• One camp argues boxed cake/pancake/brownie mixes are unnecessary: cakes are easy, mixes are overpriced flour/sugar/leavening, and from-scratch gives control over ingredients, cost, and health.
• The other camp says mixes are genuinely valuable: engineered emulsifiers, modified starches, and industrial milling produce very consistent, tender results that many home bakers struggle to match; even some professionals use premixes as a standard base.
• There’s tension and some class overtones between “purity/skill” arguments and “convenience/real-life constraints,” with accusations of snobbery on one side and “learned helplessness” on the other.

Recipes, Drift, and Measurement

• Shrinking boxes break “1 box” recipes that became de facto standards over decades, including many “family recipes” and back-of-the-box hacks. Some people now hoard old instructions or re-scale new boxes by weight.
• Others respond by rewriting family recipes from scratch, in grams, decoupled from brands and exact package sizes, and note that ingredient properties (egg size, flour protein, fat, bananas, canned soup) naturally drift over decades anyway.
• Long subthreads dig into baking precision: weighing vs cups, packing flour, egg scaling, oven calibration, altitude, and the balance between “baking is science” and “you still need intuition.”

Culture, Convenience, and Inequality

• Several point out that boxed and canned “recombinant cuisine” is a distinctly American tradition, rooted in WWII rationing, midcentury “scientific food,” and nostalgia.
• Others note that many households lack functional kitchens, storage, or access to affordable fresh food; for them, premixes, fast food, or frozen meals are pragmatic rather than lazy choices.
• Some argue that altering a long-stable box size ignores how deeply such products are embedded in cultural and family practices, and may erode brand loyalty long-term even if it improves short-term metrics.

Economic tradeoffs: rent vs. buy math

• Several comments argue buying is financially superior long‑term: fixed‑rate mortgages hedge inflation, rents compound upward, and 5x leverage on a historically appreciating asset can dominate stock returns, especially in countries where cheap mortgage debt is the only accessible leverage.
• Others counter that in many high‑cost cities (NYC, SF Bay Area, parts of Europe), equivalent mortgages plus taxes/maintenance far exceed rent, sometimes by 2x, making disciplined renting + investing clearly better on paper.
• Landlord profitability is explained via (a) buying earlier at lower rates/prices, (b) long horizons where debt inflates away, and (c) rents needing only to cover operating costs, not a new buyer’s full PITI.
• Transaction costs (taxes, fees, notaries, stamp duty) and ongoing expenses (property tax, insurance, major repairs) are highlighted as often underweighted in “home as investment” narratives.

Stability, flexibility, and life stage

• Pro‑ownership side emphasizes:
  • Protection from eviction and unpredictable rent hikes, especially important with kids, school continuity, and retirement security once mortgages are paid off.
  • Psychological benefits of control: customizing the home, not relying on a landlord’s priorities, and avoiding last‑minute moves.
• Pro‑renting side stresses:
  • Mobility for job changes, layoffs, or relationship changes; less risk of being “trapped” in a stagnant or declining area.
  • Lower exposure to catastrophic repairs, special assessments, or local tax spikes.
  • Particularly attractive for early‑career workers whose earnings can grow faster than housing costs.

Community, lifestyle, and “overbuying”

• Debate over whether ownership really fosters stronger communities; many say neighbor relationships are more about personality, kids, and culture than tenure type.
• Multiple commenters note both buyers and renters “overbuy”: large houses and luxury apartments used as status signals rather than needs.
• Some reject treating housing primarily as an investment, valuing a stable, personalized home over optimizing net worth.

Market and policy variation

• Outcomes are said to depend heavily on jurisdiction:
  • US advantages like 30‑year fixed mortgages, mortgage-interest deductibility, Prop 13–style tax caps, and owner‑favored pension rules.
  • Strong tenant protections and different tax regimes in Germany, Switzerland, Australia, etc., often tilt the calculus toward renting.
  • Institutional and mega‑landlord ownership, buy‑to‑let booms, and limited supply are blamed for locking many into “permanent renter” status despite buying being mathematically preferable if down payments were feasible.

Critiques of the article

• Many see the piece as one‑sided and light on concrete math, downplaying inflation hedging, leverage, tax treatment, and eviction risk.
• Others say it usefully challenges the cultural myth that buying is always the rational choice, but overgeneralizes from a child‑free, mobile, high‑income tech perspective.

Project guidance & AGENTS files

• Several commenters recommend an AGENTS.md (or similar) file with security rules, coding style, test expectations, and project context to steer AI agents.
• Some link to repos of template AGENTS files and say tools can auto-generate an initial version (/init).
• Others doubt this helps in typical teams where many devs already resist writing or reading documentation, suggesting even AGENTS docs might need their own generator.

Documentation quality debate

• One camp: AI’s need for context could finally incentivize better docs, structured repos, and guardrails that also benefit humans.
• Counterpoint: we’ll get more docs, not necessarily better ones; business context and use-case documentation remain hard.
• Another view: AI-generated docs are significantly better than old comment-extraction tools because they can reason over callers/callees and implementation.

Vibe coding, PR slop, and team norms

• Strong frustration with “vibe-coded” PRs: large AI-generated changes that are obviously wrong, poorly tested, or labeled [vibe] as a soft disclaimer.
• Multiple people advocate normalizing hard rejection of low-effort AI PRs and holding authors fully responsible regardless of AI use.
• Some suggest first-pass AI code review, but others say AI reviewers always “find something,” making them noisy and unhelpful.
• Several anecdotes describe huge, unnecessary AI-driven changes that waste senior time to unwind.

Productivity, prompting skill, and AI babysitting

• Experiences diverge sharply. Some say AI lets them operate more like architects, quickly executing multi-file refactors or boilerplate.
• Others feel they spend more time crafting prompts and supervising than just coding, and that reviewing AI output is boring and demoralizing.
• One perspective frames this as a leadership/management problem: working with AI is like managing many novice juniors; success depends on planning, prompts, and knowing when to interrupt.
• Another thread argues “prompt engineering” can yield weeks of work from a single well-crafted prompt; skeptics press for concrete examples.

Workforce, incentives, and media

• Observations that companies are cutting juniors and leaning on AI plus seniors, effectively “offshoring” work to LLMs and risking long-term expertise.
• Concerns that “AI babysitting” turns seniors into cleanup crews for hype-driven decisions, with comparisons to gold-rush “shovel sellers” and prior outsourcing/H‑1B cycles.
• Several express fatigue with AI boosterism in media and from tool vendors, feeling the discourse is dominated by marketing.

Overall reaction to OCSP end-of-life

• Many commenters are glad to see OCSP go, calling it poorly designed, privacy-hostile, and fragile (fail-open, easy to block, DoS-prone).
• Others argue OCSP stapling was a reasonable stopgap when certificates lasted many years; with 90-day (and future 47-day) certs, its value is much lower.

OCSP vs short-lived certs and revocation

• Strong camp: short-lived certificates (days, eventually 24h) plus Certificate Transparency (CT) are strictly better than OCSP/stapling for web TLS.
• Counterpoint: you still can’t force early expiration after compromise; revocation (via OCSP/CRL/CRLite) is still needed, especially for longer-lived non‑TLS or offline uses.
• One argument suggests “just reissue a cert” instead of revocation; rebuttal is that this doesn’t help when the server is compromised and still serving the old cert.

CRLs, CRLite, CRLSets, and browser behavior

• CRLs are seen as ugly but now the main path, with scale problems (size, propagation delay, need for tricks like Bloom filters).
• Firefox’s CRLite is viewed as a workable central revocation mechanism that doesn’t require server changes.
• Chrome’s CRLSets are criticized as a Google‑controlled, pre-filtered blacklist that doesn’t cover all revoked certs, especially for internal CAs; defenders note this “central list” model is now common.
• Some discussion on Firefox’s security.OCSP.require: for LE certs without OCSP URLs it likely does nothing, and Firefox already relies more on CRLite.

Certificate lifetimes, enforcement, and CT

• Debate over whether lifetime limits are enforced by CAs or browsers:
  • Public roots: browsers enforce maximum lifetimes, and CT makes long-lived mis-issuance quickly visible.
  • Custom roots: browsers often exempt them; very long-lived internal certs can still work.
• Extremely short lifetimes (e.g., 24h) would greatly increase CT volume and make full-log scanning difficult for smaller operators.

DNS, DANE, and centralization

• Long thread on whether TLS PKI is “more centralized” than DNS:
  • One side: DNS (TLDs, registries) is highly centralized; governments and registries can manipulate zones.
  • Other side: WebPKI is effectively controlled by a small set of browser vendors and a CA cartel; some argue security is no better than DNS-based schemes.
• DANE/DNSSEC is mentioned as a theoretical alternative (publishing keys/revocation in DNS), but practical deployment, middleboxes, revocation, and migration issues are seen as blocking.

Non-browser and enterprise impacts

• Concern that non-browser clients now lack a practical revocation channel, especially in mTLS, secure boot, or enterprise/internal PKI scenarios where OCSP is still used.
• Chrome reportedly does not check CRLs for internal CAs by default, relying instead on enterprise policy configuration.
• Air-gapped or special-purpose environments may need CRL-only roots or other custom mechanisms.

Operational/edge notes

• OCSP requiring port 80 sometimes clashes with “HTTPS-only” enterprise policies.
• One person wonders if OCSP/LE changes affected HSTS behavior for a production site; others don’t provide a clear answer.
• Some note that for Let’s Encrypt certs without OCSP URLs, OCSP-related browser settings effectively become moot.