Ferrari is owned by FIAT.

15 years without Linux desktops but we run most of our datacenter in Linux (around 100 servers).
I think this sums up Linux / open source scene right now.

Problem was that they (IPv6 designers) did not only wanted to solve the lack of IPv4 addresses but to add a bunch of new features in it. Solved one problem but created a bunch of new ones.

The KISS principle was, once again, not respected by the tech industry.

Reminds me the 32 to 64 bits architecture transition in the software industry, it was nothing but painful and still today we have issues with it but at least it's almost done - after decades.

Bottom line, the people I trust most with my data are those who primarily make money off it. They have an incentive to protect it. Those who make money off my data as just a side income stream are those most likely to pass it on to whomever in whatever raw format someone is willing to pay for.

What? Are you serious?
They can sell you over and over and you're ok with it because they are making money out of it?
Is that even an argument?

Besides that, who cares about the improvement on how the Chinese government spies on their citizens?

If they protect their own facilities like this imagine our own data :S

Missed one point:

6) Kids should not have access to guns

It was not the gun who killed them, it was the bullet...

That was the best. Loved the original CEO Denholm Reynholm until he jumped from the headquarters tower!
And what about the goth in the server room? Hilarious
First show to fit the whole internet in a box. xD

The problem is that when a company get so big like Netflix it won't be easy for the market to react. It just can't pop up a new streaming company next day with a better offer and catalogue than Netflix. Same happens on many different areas like ISP's for example.

So, in this case, the idea of market competition and adjustment for customer benefit kinda sucks in capitalism.

Capitalism is like Monopoly(tm). Starts well for everyone and things get better during the way: buying properties, building houses, paying taxes BUT, in the end, only one can win and everybody else goes bankrupt. Right now, in capitalism, we passed half way of the game.

They could enforce it in popular hardware like smartphones, digital cameras, etc..
Some high profile websites (like image banks) could adopt it in a way to prevent others to seal their content.
Even Facebook can adopt it to stop people from using YOUR content which is now THEIRS.

Traveled half world to attend DEF CON 22 and it was a great experience. Saw some interesting conferences, learned how to lockpick, new hacking techniques, social engineering skills, met great people (including Kevin Mitnick) and, of course, party hard for 3 days! Thanks to all who made DEF CON possible all this years.

"While it is true that with TRR you may not expose the websites you call to a random DNS server in an untrustworthy network you don't know(...)"

I don't use random DNS servers and I don't trust Cloudfare at all. Why in the world should they choose that for me? I see so many problems (performance and security for starters) with this approach that find it hard to believe how this idea got this far.

This reminds me the time Network Solutions wanted to resolve all unknown hosts to his own IP's to show a friendly message (and maybe gather some data in the process).

Hope it's possible to change this behavior and sincerely hope Mozilla invest their resources in optimizing Firefox performance rather than this nonsense.

Forcing a website that serves only public content and requires no user input it's absurd!
Why spend the resources of encryption (well put by @RichardStallin) in something that needs none as it's already public information.
The only point I see in Google doing this is that they're concerned about sharing the user navigation history with others since forcing https doesn't affect Google Analytics but may affect other services who get their stats based on packet inspection.