This looks like a fine project for its purpose, but I think git is already open-source and p2p. You don't need sh<(curl) a bunch of binaries, instead simply connect to another git server, use git commadns to directly pull or merge code.

What's missing in git is code issues, wikis, discussions, github pages and most importantly, a developer profile network.

We need a way to embed project metadata into .git itself, so source code commits don't mess up with wikis and issues. Perhaps some independent refs like git notes?

https://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes

What is more risky to you: Leaving known vulnerabilities such as spectre unpatched or the possibility of Intel adding a backdoor for some unknown purpose that wasn't present in the shipped hardware?

The thing is that the FSF's stance is already a pragmatic approach of sorts but the line is drawn in a strange place that doesn't really help advance the cause. The hard line approach of "all firmware must be free, too" would render basically every computer unusable, even RMS can see that's going too far to be practical. So, they make an abstraction boundary where "free" stops: If the kernel doesn't load the firmware then it's as if the chip is implemented completely in hardware. It's a practical decision because you have to stop somewhere otherwise you can't get anything done. I wish the FSF/GNU-aligned folks would just make a slightly different compromise that makes it a lot easier for people to start using free software distros. Not shipping CPU microcode updates is particularly harmful to users. 10 years ago it was not too hard to run a distro without firmware blobs on a laptop if you were cool with just getting a thinkpad, but modern intel hardware requires a blob for graphics so even that path is closed now. My 2022 thinkpad x1 needs blobs for graphics, wifi, bluetooth, and sound and I tried to find something modern that didn't need them and gave up eventually.

The Russian war on Ukraine is the term you were looking for.

People always drive, not to within certain parameters of the law, but to within their risk tolerance. As cars become more safe, the risk factor reduces which allow people to increase risky behavior.

If you want people to drive better, don't put airbags in their steering wheel, put a 6" metal spike pointed at their chest.

I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs.

(The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)

I don't understand the premise. The point of a CAPTCHA is to tell Computers and Humans Apart, that's what the CHA stands for. You cannot hope to do this test using a proof-of-work system where the work is computer work.

Call this a client rate-limiter, or whatever else, but it is obviously not a CAPTCHA and cannot function in this way.

Another obvious problem is that server hardware is vastly more powerful than the average user's device. If you set your challenge to an amount of work that doesn't meaningfully drive users away and/or drain their batteries, you are allowing a malicious server to pass your challenge tens of thousands of times an hour.