No, unless it is or can be economically comparable to costs at the time it is commercially available, it's next to useless. You seem to have forgotten inflation, price gouging, increases in demand from consumers etc.
You're suggesting that if it's commercially available in (say) 10 years, and approximately a 1:1 direct replacement for fossil diesel, it has to sell for about $2.80 a gallon (at today's prices from some presumably US site called "Daily Fuel Gauge Report"), even if fossil diesel is selling for $6.00 a gallon. That's illogical.
Imagine you have a power supply with a 0V ground, a +5V supply and a +12V supply.
Now connect a resistive load with the input lead on +12V and the ground lead on +5V. You now have a +7V delta and are treating the +5V supply line as if it were ground.
Often done in building PCs to be quieter (as the fans move less air, but are significantly quieter).
Yes, OK, somehow it's Microsoft's fault that the web developers completely failed to produce a site that works in real IE. So by that logic, it is also Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't work, and Google's fault that Chrome doesn't? Of course not. You just wanted an excuse to play in the big boy pool didn't you? "See, I'm just like you popular kids and I fit in because I'm copying your behaviour, two seconds after you do it".
Where's your browser, AC? Which browser deployed across millions of PCs did you write? And why won't you take responsibility for it failing to work with this site? And why do you and Google and Mozilla and Microsoft keep disagreeing on the way the box model works, and where the lines go, and what spacing is what? Oh, because the spec is ambiguous you say? Still must be your fault then!
I'm all for bashing Microsoft when they do stupid stuff. But if you want to be effective, wait until it's actually their fault.
Rust, on the other hand, is something genuinely new: it provides completely memory safety without a requiring a garbage collector at all. It's sad to seeing people switch from Rust to Nim: they're often too inexperienced to know what they're giving up, and I feel like they're seeking (syntactic) novelty, not a programming environment that's actually useful.
Noticing does not mean we care
Karma -= 100...
None of these protect against a volume-oriented DDoS. Many are DoS only (single / few sources) and do not apply when every IP on the Internet appears to be sending thousands of requests, or more likely, responses. Further, you've completely ignored spoofing of addresses combined with amplification attacks (send out a 64 byte DNS request pretending to be the DDoS target, get 4kB sent to the target). Finally, regardless of the 50-100Gbps pipes MS, Sony and Amazon no doubt have, they're useless when there's 1Tbps of amplified crap directed down the pipes. With the example above, you'd only need about 4Gbps of bandwidth total (40 cheap VPS on "100Mbps" connections) to generate 256Gbps of DDoS.
When 256Gbps of rubbish arrives at your servers or firewalls
And since it seems it was apk I'm replying to
Buddy, you can get a certificate for less than FIVE US dollars per year. Is that too much for you?
Actually yes, frankly it is. Because according to Google's overpaid, brain-dead Chrome developers, I need one for the KVM, one for each of the management cards in the servers, one for each of the appliances I have (from DVRs to firewalls etc), one for each little device with a web server (assuming it even supports writing a certificate to storage, and config for HTTPS), one for each workstation or server with an app or config UI. Quick count for my house alone