Why do you think asciidoc is better than Markdown? Serious question as quick skim over the homepage (https://asciidoctor.org/) and it looks just like Markdown with different sigils.
One of the main failings of markdown (for me) is it's lack of expressiveness, always forcing us to revert to html to get certain things done.
Markdown's great for simple readme, or if you don't need to (say) right align an image, of apply a class to a paragraph (eg. To turn it into an inset).
While I personally prefer textile (which is a deader dodo than asciidoc), they are both able to do significantly more than markdown.
I look at the problem as: if markdown forces me to write html, then I may as well use html...
(Ps: in textile "> hello world" at the start of a line sets right alignment, "=" for justified, "p.inset#my_id hello world" applies an "inset" class to the para and gives it the id "my_id". Asciidoc is similar, but I'm not familiar enough with it to write it on my phone just now)
Some of our documents contain confidential details (personal data, client confidential details). Keybase provides a filesystem (kbfs), accessible by authorized individuals, with team management, and git repositories for recording history.
>One would think that developers at the very least would have some deductive reasoning, so using the n and k word against me, when my profile picture and name clearly show I am neither
I don't think this person understands that part of the internet...
Github should ban all these accounts and try to track the real accounts for the fakes to ban these too. These intolerant people should not have the right to use this service.
The post is well-written and summarizes I think most major pain-points with PGP.
Comparison of all these tools to GnuPG is valid and it clearly shows not only implementation problems but design ones as well in gpg.
What I fear is future riddled with all these incompatible tools. Even if they're written by brilliant engineers and cryptographers they are not standards (e.g. IETF standards). Why is that important? For example rewriting libsignal from scratch (for example to publish it under permissive licenses) can be problematic [0].
> I have my own domain, so maybe OPENPGPKEY record in my domain as well
> DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Bindings for OpenPGP
WKD has some benefits over OPENPGPKEY - it keeps the request confidential (as WKD uses plain HTTPS). WKD is just easier to get right, that's why it's more broadly supported. GnuPG, that supports both of them, defaults to WKD. If OPENPGPKEY request is made it seems GnuPG doesn't even validate DNSSEC signatures: https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2011-December/...
Here's the source: https://github.com/wiktor-k/openpgp-proofs#openpgp-proofs