5 ms·

http://www.paulgraham.com/ http://www.paulgraham.com/

• brian-bk 6y ago
  There's no cert because there's no need for one in the first place. Mentioning that is pretty silly - it's obvious that there's nothing wrong with a static site with now cert, and no one is arguing against that.
  • maxmalysh 6y ago
    > there's nothing wrong with a static site with no cert Not really. Google says "switch to HTTPS or lose ranking": https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/08/https-as-ranking-s...
    • brian-bk 6y ago
      Good to note. But I think you're distracting from the article's talking point. I disagree with "switch to HTTPS or lose ranking", but that's an HTTP vs. HTTPS issue with Google's search ranking, not about Chromium or Mozilla. This article is about Chromium & Mozilla making stricter rules for HTTPS certificates. That's not a bad thing, to hold HTTPS sites to a better standard.
  • riffic 6y ago
    > no need for one in the first place ... it's obvious that there's nothing wrong with a static site with no cert Oh yes, there is. https://doesmysiteneedhttps.com https://doesmysiteneedhttps.com > YES > Your site needs HTTPS.