Publishing everything on a blockchain means that everybody who’s running a node has access to a copy
I'm not sure that's the case, although the article is rather vague. It says:
[...] the user must register with a node of their choice using their public key. Once registered, users can create channels and invite others to join. Each channel has a separate ledger hosted by the nodes. [...] The data in the ledgers are encrypted, and the secret key is managed by the users of the channel.
IIUC, nodes will not have access to private keys, neither those from users nor those from channels. Users could use their keys to exchange the channel's private key without the node getting to know it. I don't quite understand how user's would exchange their public keys without the node being able to play MITM, though...
Edit: Removed an irrelevant sentence from the quote
Honestly, I prefer an overly long name over some cryptic naming scheme that looks like minified JS. At least you can be sure of the variable's purpose and don't have to guess, which is far better for readability.
Just because you like Brave the search engine doesn't mean you have to use Brave the browser. The two have no inherent connection.
Edit: While we're on the subject of money, I'd be more worried about that Peter Thiel money Brave took. That man openly claims freedom and democracy to be incompatible and supports efforts to create independent libertarian societies on international waters and in space.
I’d rather developers don’t support Linux than make Electron application
Hard disagree. I'd rather run an Electron application than having to side-load Windows for some application I actually need. Also, you don't have to install Electron applications, so if you want you can just pretend they don't support Linux.
flatpak isn't the same because you only have to learn one packaging format and can distribute to virtually any system out there. I really don't see why you'd also package for every distro individually then. Installing flatpak isn't that hard, it not being "the defacto standard" shouldn't be an issue.
You aren't owed a native package for whatever OS you're using. In fact, you should be thankful that flatpak exists because the most common alternative is piping wget into shell.
And if you care so much about security, just build your stuff from source. Whether flatpak or apt, at some point you will run third-party code.
Depends on the viewpoint. As a software consumer, sure. As a software producer though, not having to deal with with tons of different packaging formats and repositories for different distributions and versions is a blessing.
The fact that these allegations come in quick succession is rather logical, I'd say. It's much harder to come out against someone who is a generally beloved public figure, so when the allegations finally start, many people see their chance to have their voice be taken seriously.
It's not garbage, it just has some flaws - as does everything. The Spring and Java/JVM ecosystem can be a huge advantage if you know how to use it - which sometimes means diving into library code when docs aren't sufficient.
Of course you don't have to, but if you don't plan on ever using it then it's just trash living in your git folder. If you do plan on using it again in the future, then it's usually better to make it a branch so you can push it to a remote.
China isn't inherently unethical. Just because Apple's Chinese factories contain suicide nets, doesn't mean every Chinese factory does.