OK, yes, the free Wifi scenario makes sense.

But I still think it's a bit weird to have proof of identity for IP addresses. For example, if a host presents a valid certificate for "example.com", then I can be reasonably confident that the host I'm talking to is controlled by whoever registered the domain "example.com", barring a compromised machine or leaked private key. There's a trail from the domain registrar to the name servers to the host.

But if someone tells me to visit 16.34.212.76 I have no idea who that is. Great! Whoever controls 16.34.212.76 has managed to prove they control 16.34.212.76 from different vantage points around the Internet... but so what? Who the heck is 16.34.212.76 anyway?

I can see this being useful for DoH if you configure your name servers with IP addresses like 8.8.8.8. Struggling to see other use cases that can't be handled better with a FQDN.

The SSL cert doesn't "encrypt the traffic". It's solely used as proof of identity.

You can have proof of identity without encryption, and you can have encryption without proof of identity.

If an attacker can reroute traffic destined for a specific IP address, then they can also obtain a certificate for that IP address by running the ACME challenge. (Same for the ACME HTTP challenge, actually...)

The only way this would fail is if an attacker can reroute my traffic, but not the traffic needed for the ACME challenge.

I don't understand the use case. If I connect via TCP to some IP address 42.42.42.42, it's rather difficult for an attacker to actually connect me to a different IP address... much more difficult than spoofing a domain name.

So, the certificate tells me "Yes, this really is 42.42.42.42." But I knew that already.

Maybe for UDP, attacks are a bit more feasible, but even so... they're not exactly easy.

I guess the only real use case I can see is to avoid a scary browser warning if you navigate to an IP address instead of a domain name.

Man this Superman marketing budget must be crazy. Or possibly it's an F4 promo? But then it would be a little late.

From your link "the surface warming increases signicantly for the case of water feedback assuming xed relative humidity"

it literally explains the "Feedback Loop" that's the problem. CO2 causes some warming, which causes more H20 vapor to be released, which causes far more warming...and repeat.

a given CO2 concentration will obviously reach a heat/radiative equilibrium - but it's not acting alone.

Also, Venus would like a word.

Ignorance is knowledge. Superstition is science. Cruelty is compassion. Greed is altruism.

I am not. I see you are a fool.

Good day.

An indicator of catastrophic future damage isn't newsworthy....to fools.

literally google "CO2 ppm [year]" and you'll find dozens of citations.

You do know we have data on CO2 levels going back millions of years right? It hasn't increased this fast this high since humans have been around. In fact it was relatively stable until about 100 years ago.

1000 AD - 280 ppm
1100 AD - 282
1200 AD - 284
1300 AD - 283
1400 AD - 281
1500 AD - 282
1600 AD - 277
1700 AD - 277
1800 AD - 283
1850 AD - 285
1900 AD - 295
1950 AD - 310
1975 AD - 330
1990 AD - 355
2000 AD - 368
2010 AD - 387
2020 AD - 412
2024 AD - 422

"TDS" is simply the reflexive response when you can't defend him.

Maybe in the past. But now with the Rethuglicans aiming their ire at education, US universities are no longer going to attract the best and brightest, and innovation in the USA will decline. Do you honestly think Google, Amazon or Meta have innovated recently? All they've done is consolidate monopoly power.

Meanwhile, China is in fact innovating in many areas. And if you want to see innovation in Europe, you only need to look to Ukraine to appreciate their ingenuity in standing up to a much larger military power.

And the tragic thing about this is that the possibility isn't really that far-fetched, and indeed is precisely the type of thing the climate deniers would do to thwart climate science.