I hate to be this dismissive, but it feels like an academic with a paternalistic streak looked deeply at how the Internet works, saw lots of different protocols and weird design decisions, and decided: this is not coherent enough. Then he figured, I'll make all the decisions now, that way it'll be coherent. And let's give every subnet a centralised source of trust and management. That'll make the design so much cleaner!

By which I mean to insinuate there's a lot of nuance and learned lessons in the current situation that this design seems not to learn from. Even though it did learn some lessons, I don't think this passes 'Chestertons fence'

nah. this is palantir operating through a bermuda holding company trying to shoe-horn oauth into every single packet to force every single click ever to be authenticated against a persona. the goal is 1984.

There was a lot of forceful diplomacy by the US. Sure, but there was also a lot of actually good diplomacy happening. Calling all of that a thin glove is underselling the good work of a lot people.

The good side of US diplomacy was one of the most positive forces in the world. Trump fully dismantled that. Not just the US aid work, but also the Pax Americana that really limited the scale of war in the world.

There were horrible missteps at the same time. The US wasn’t all good. Maybe it wasn’t even net good. But there was a significant good side, and its dismantling isn’t a small thing in the world.

Confidentiality of the TLS connection is indeed easy to handle here.

The hard part is certificate authentication. And that's not included in the cipher suite setting.

It's not that they are meaningfully different. It's just acknowledging if you really want currying, you can say 'why not just use a single parameter of tuple type'.

Then there's an implication of 'sure, but that doesn't actually help much if it's not standar' and then it's not addressed further.

Someone else in the comments mentioned that scala does this with _ as the placeholder.

For schools and hospitals, why specify COTS? Do you want SOTS for schools and HOTS for hospitals just like we have MOTS?

Figure out where you can't buy pictures to narrow it down, if you want a more exact match, pay for pictures from that area from non US providers.

If the solution is parental control software, that also puts onus on operating systems to present the means for such software to work properly. This does not mean the OS should censor, it might mean the OS offers a censorship interface.

At least we seem to agree the solution lies with better tools for parents.

So the solution is effective parental controls. Government mandated age verification isn't parental control, and is unlikely to be very effective.

That means making it possible for parents to actively block bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.

Internet filters exist. I think we should legislate them, making it mandatory for children, or a similar solution.

Nonono. Nothing mandatory. It's a parents choice. The thing to do is help parents enforce their choices. Not forcing choices onto parents.