Why, exactly, is it good that pedophiles get hurt?

Pedophilia is a perverse sexual orientation, like zoophilia, coprophilia and many others, but does not imply that the afflicted has or will abuse children. There's a greater risk, but we do not wish to punish people for being a greater risk, do we? If so, it would be good if we hurt all male relatives, who by far pose the greatest risk for a child being molested.

If we want to stop child molestations, I think what we need to do is look at why some people do the heinous deeds, and figure out how to stop people from flipping over.
Somehow I get the feeling that many would be sad if that happened, because then they wouldn't have anyone to string up and exact revenge on.
But in my opinion, one child molested is one too many, and no matter how much you flog pedophiles, it won't reduce the problem.

If there's a Google employee or outside hacker with a wish to see this person go back to jail does not imply there has to be a conspiracy. That the person is formerly convicted would, I believe, make it more likely that the person is framed, not less. There are enough people who think anything less than life sentence is too mild, and some of those are more than willing to "do what it takes".

It's a good thing e-mail is securely linked to and absolutely controlled by individuals, so no-one can possibly send incriminating images to or from someone's mailbox.

Brand away. I do support child molestors. And murderers. And swindlers. And racists. And slavers. I do not support child molestation, murder, swindle, racism, or slavery. But that is no reason not to care about the people, and wishing that they can be rehabilitated and become productive and respected members of society for the rest of their lives.
If there is evil in a person, it's a mental illness that needs a cure, not a carte blanche to do evil to the person in return.
The Abrahamic religious nonsense about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" needs to stop, or we'll never progress into a peaceful society.

I am more worried about the risk of this being used for framing someone. Perhaps especially those who have served their sentence and are in public registers.

A prior conviction for which a person has served the sentence should never be enough justification on its own to warrant a search, whether it's done by a person or by software. There must be probable cause, or we've made a farce out of the 4th amendment. What's next? Are algorithms listening in through your phone and PCs microphone okay?

And? I am sure there are people out there who would send child porn to registered sex offenders in order to frame them.

When corporations have abilities beyond what the government has, and act on behalf of the law, in a way that could not be foreseen by the lawmakers of the past, I think the only way to honor the intent of the constitution would be to apply the 4th amendment protections there too. Whether a search and seizure is committed by an algorithm or a person is irrelevant - if there was not enough suspicion to justify a search warrant, the evidence should be admissible. No matter how guilty the person is.
Remember: We are all guilty of something. Today they may go after possible child porn recipients, tomorrow they may go after speeders and use tax evaders, and one day after those who may oppose status quo. The opportunities for abuse are endless.
Give the devil a finger, and he takes the whole hand.

Everyone is a potential terrorist.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, CIA director John Brennan, actress Julia Roberts, you and I are all potential terrorists. And potential child molesters too.

It shouldn't go without saying. That's groupthink.

What distinguishes a mensch from a barbarian is the ability to have sympathy for even those you despise the most. If someone is a child molester, I would think it highly likely that they suffer from a mental illness, and need our help. I don't think there are many who decided to become a child molester.

The more heinous the crime, the more important it is that we do not let base feelings take control. If we do, we are no better than the child molesters who let their base feelings take control of what they do.

That's not due to better design, but more use of cheaper and softer materials. They're not built to last anymore. Give me a 10 year old Lian-Li case and band-aids any day over today's cheap plastic.

If that's what you read, you need to practice your reading skills, cause they suck.
What I pointed out is that cgroups are separate from the init process, and can and do indeed run on sysv init systems too. cgroups has nothing to do with init, and runs separate from init no matter what you use for init.

When you brought up cgroups as an argument, it appeared to be from a false belief that systemd was needed for cgroups to work - in fact, it's the other way around!
And when systemd uses cgroups, it takes them over for its own purpose, which lessens the value of cgroups compared to systems where you are free to use cgroups from scratch. Freedom to choose - that's what makes Unix great. Poetterware takes away that freedom.

TCP isn't noticably more secure than UDP - the extra fields in TCP are unsigned and can be spoofed too. There are even a couple of attacks that only works with TCP, like source congestion. The only "security" TCP buys you is if you have a dynamic real-time alerting system for tcp sequence errors and similar likely to be seen in spoof attacks. You don't have such an alerting system.
Thus, security is implemented on top of the transport layer, where it works just as well for udp as tcp. The advantage of udp then is that you get more payload per encrypted or signed unit, thus higher speed.

That said, the main use of nfs is within secure perimeters, where speed and transparency is the main goal. In which case all you need is a honor system access control, designed to prevent users and apps from doing bad things no matter who they (say they) are. I.e. the focus is on what is shared, and what's allowed, not who you share it to.

Where Windows is very user focused in its trust based security model, Unix is very data focused.
A typical Windows share will allow any user to write and execute whatever they like. The users don't understand the "Advanced Security" properties anyhow, so implementing it will just lead to complaints. If a client is compromised, so is the share..
A typical Unix share will only allow users write and execute access to specific directories, no matter who they say they are. Remote root users typically get even less access, not for security but to prevent accidents. If a client is compromised, the shares should be safe.

But nfs does not take over and cripple your dns server.
It's the hooks into and taking over parts that work fine on their own that's the problem with domain controllers and systemd. It goes directly against the Unix toolbox approach, and stifles innovation because now you have to do everything within the context of the super-program.

(As for your testing, did you try with jumbo packets? NFS supports it, and CIFS doesn't. It makes a tremendous difference, especially for writes to remote RAIDs or disks with a 4k block size. Also, avoid distros that set up NFS to use tcp instead of the default udp. That's a huge performance killer, and not needed unless you use hubs instead of switches or need to tunnel the traffic.)

No, not at all. They produce the very finest shit eating utensils in the world. It's not the utensil that is the problem.

What does cgroup have to do with anything? I run several systems with cgroup and sysv init. The two are separate, and there is no need for systemd for that.

Actually, they're all mine - no repeat at all. I have been a system administrator since the early 90s, and know what problems Unix like systems have. sysv init has not been anywhere near the top of that list. It was a great improvement over starting apps directly from inittab, and is something that has been working and has kept on working, precisely because it's so simple.

I say this with feeling: You are an idiot.
The problem is obviously not "learning that an .ini file has sections", but that you cannot easily use standard Unix tools on an .ini file because of the sections. sed -e 's/port=.*/port=587/' works great on standard config files, but not .ini files where more than one section may have a port. .ini files are inherently automation unfriendly, because the lines depend on a context you can't derive from the line itself.

No, more the rubberbanding. Consoles don't have mice that can easily change acceleration and start and stop instantly, so to make games playable with a controller, the movements are not synchronized with the stick - when you let go of the stick, you don't instantlly stop, but your movement slows down to a halt over a small period of time. So your actions don't match your movements.
That's also seen in bad console ports, by the way.