I did read the intro, it similarly fails to define what does "danger" or "impaired" mean from the perspective of a webserver and why it would matter as part of

I did read the intro, it similarly fails to define what does "danger" or "impaired" mean from the perspective of a webserver and why it would matter as part of the protocol. There's just nothing here that makes me think "this seems like something HTTP should be concerned about": > create a dangerous situation, there is a pattern of erratic requests with the potential for danger, or the requester is otherwise detected as impaired. "The risk a given requester represents" I mean... this is just so nebulous. Is this a special status code for webserver running in a breathalyzer? I'm convinced this is some kind of post-AI satire. To be clear I understand the need for specialized devices to prevent misuse and user error. But the HTTP protocol is like, the worst possible choice for where to build that out. This is a layer 0 concern, not layer 7. Who knows though. Maybe in a decade when Alcohol-as-a-Service startups are delivering fine liquor directly via the built-in straw of some next-gen Oculus headset, my virtual bartender will leverage this status when they cut me off.