This is my biggest issue, it's such a bare-faced lie!
It's completely insane for the browser to need to trust the client. Instead, you implement zero-trust, and require authentication and authorization for anything sensitive.
The server absolutely shouldn't trust the client isn't malicious, instead it should assume it is malicious until proven otherwise
What are the "display" variants of the new fonts in that article? In the examples, they're the ones with a * appended. They look much narrower to me (which I like).
I'm not at my PC right now, so it may just be that there's an "Aptos Display" font or something 😅
The vegan milk part is so specific but so true!
I think the last sentence here is the killer for the opposing argument, really.
Personally (not knowing enough about economics and public borrowing), my common-sense view is "if it can make money for the private investors, why can't it make money for the government with their low borrowing costs?" People throw around a lot of counter arguments that have varying degrees of merit, but no arguments I've seen against public ownership deal with the "private ownership has demonstrably failed for the last 30 years" argument. Doesn't matter what your political/economic/social viewpoint is, that's just fact at this point
I don't think that's true.
I think this is useful unless your threat model doesn't contain supply chain attacks by non-Google actors (which would be a pretty absurd position to take, there are plenty of malicious actors out there, Google aren't the only one!)
It clearly helps to mitigate against some threats, and so makes sense as a mitigation in your threat model.
I agree that you may still want a mitigation against Google acting maliciously, but that doesn't make this pointless.