Perhaps to prevent (or at least make it harder for) someone shorting around the security it is supposed to provide, i.e. by emulating or modifying the replacement part - not that that'd really stop the determined ones
Dr. Doug Corrigan seems to have more of a history in pseudoscience and pushing religious theories than science, not sure what the relevance of his blog is here, other than that it's rehashing the original source and weaving conspiracy theories into it.
Why would UFOs imply extraterrestrial origin? It's the least likely explanation for them being there by a wide margin. They're just unidentified flying objects, in the literal sense of the acronym.
> To provide a modern, productive programming system that adheres to browser APIs.
In my opinion, the best part of node is (or was) that it didn't adhere to the browser APIs. That brought in some fresh air, and gave us buffers, native bindings, streams etc.
Web does have streams and buffers. Web assembly seems to fill in the gaps for native code but deno supports rust plugins which removes any sandbox guarantees so it's a trade off.
I think their point has merit. It isn't don't use DoH, it is don't use DoH outside your network and outside your control as it has been/can be exploited by 3rd parties. CISA, as the article points out, made the same argument, it isn't that DoH is bad, it is that a 3rd party DoH provider can actually do malicious things hidden from the IT admins and staff, making identifying a malicious endpoint the user was served via DNS harder.
I am not above thinking any government agency might put out disinformation to protect a source/access, but this one seems like a reasonable position to take on security.
Agreed. DoH seems good for personal privacy (i.e. hides the um... meditation sites), but when it comes to enterprises, administrators will have no way of knowing what sites their users are actually being directed to.