I sympathize with the author's feelings in general, but also hope he directs some of the frustration towards his government for forcing the whole age verification scam (let alone everything else that is being broken in that particular jurisdiction)
so most people here are salty about Doge actually delivering on transparency, albeit imperfectly, vs promises and SLS style multi billion "effort" unable to deliver for decades?
mind you, it's totally legit to ridicule the noob security lapses, but the rest of the sentiment here seems a bit meh
My frustration at this type of interviews is more philosophical. In broad strokes, for some reason the employers desire and require a significant amount of effort and training from potential employees so that those could (in theory) then solve complex problems for the company; but at the same time, employer's management _usually_ absolutely refuses to invest any noticeable resource in researching, designing and maintaining the processes they should be accountable for, including the recruitment.
Which leads to the current state of IT/high-tech recruitment where things are, in most cases, so mismatched between ends and means, it's not even funny. It might be very entertaining to look at how people hiring for senior+ infrastructure roles (SRE, DevOps, what have you) try to use "leetcode" style stages - unless you are a desperate job seeker. (and no, I don't think an SRE or cloud infra engineer shouldn't be able to code, I just don't think leetcode-style tests are at all relevant as tests for that)
And at the end of the day you end up with an engineering org where in the intake funnel they ask you to [competitively] solve variants of the knapsack problem, but once in, you end up solving it in the form of "how do I slice and dice a set of tickets within a completely irrelevant, misaligned and misunderstood "Agile" model so that can best pack SPs into a sprint and also do some actually useful work".
Your reply seems to assume that companies are efficient. Which is not the case, and the larger the company, the lower internal s/n ratio and, arguably, the larger percent of wastage.
Also, "immediately" switching across cloud vendors is not even a pipe dream, it's an impossibility and the very act of switching is incredibly expensive both short and long term (unless your cloud usage is one VM or so). So there's no simplicity in that example, it's a counter-example.
One of the possible ways of "fixing" it is natural evolution and selection, the way it happened with communication networks. They once ruled, but eventually the shifted to being "dumb pipes" (leaving aside for a moment how exact that moniker is) and the end-user device manufacturers taking over as the point of delivery of paid services.
The same could theoretically happen for entertainment content, in one way or another. A popular scenario present in a lot of sci-fi is that people subscribe to "channels" or data streams or whatchacallit, and the point of access is actually working as an aggregator and single point of payment. I can see no valid reason why big outfits like Sony or Samsung couldn't do that, effectively defragmenting the subscription craziness and easily dealing with backoffice negotiations on licensing and whatnot (Sony could probably do that without leaving the building).
Again, it doesn't HAVE to be the end-user device manufacturer to present such a single-point service, but I think they are best positioned to be first movers for such a paradigm. And not saying it would be easy, because they are subject to the same brain-dead enshittification attempts in their "smart" devices as anyone else, and that is a habit that is hard to quit.
(sadly necessary disclaimer: I am in no position to represent any kind of formal Israel stance on anything, so these are just my thoughts derived from generally available knowledge)
Israel as a state was created solely by following agreements proposed by external parties (UK and UN in particular), and even then mostly on lands that were legitimately bought or were not legally owned by anyone (aside from possibly Ottoman empire in bulk) mostly for the reason of being badlands. It then had aggressive war foisted upon it within 48 hours of creation, which it has then won. Any territorial gains for Israel since then have only happened as a result of defensive wars, and a whole bunch of those territories were given back, including the Sinai peninsula. Gaza strip would also have been given back, except Egypt flatly refused to have anything to do with it (I wonder why).
Israel doesn't have any a priori hostility to Muslim nation-states (or any others, for that matter). You can freely practice Islam (or any other religion, including none at all (with some stupid caveats if you are actually a Jew - not a restriction, but practical incoveniences)) inside of Israel, Arabic is the second official state language.
So, unless a nation-state goes forward and declares, by their own volition, that they want to kill Jews and obliterate Israel, or undertakes practical hostile actions - it's not an enemy of Israel, and Israel would indeed gladly be a friendly neighbour (be it in the literal sense, or planetary), trading, cultural, tourist, scientific and any other kind of partner. At worst, I dare say, a disinterested observer - though it is hard to imagine, given the extroverted and warmly Levantine character.
None of this constitutes border expansion. As for blatant ignorance, please check the reasons for the "blockade", for the wall (which is nothing like Berlin), and even for the very existence of the "West Bank" entity.
You may want to do some research on alternative reasons for Muslim countries not take in Palestinian refugees. Such as, for example, not wanting to repeat the fate of Lebanon and, partly, Jordan, which did - resulting Lebanon devolving into a failed state, and Jordan just barely escaping full scale civil war.
You also declare that Israel is the enemy of Muslim nations, which it is not, unless forced by hostilities explicitly declared by the other side.
Nobody likes an elite team of superheroes for a _business_. Superheroes burn out, get hit by a bus, have limited affinity for creating good documentation, sometimes a tendency to be fascinated by shiny things, can get annoyed by a real or perceived <whatever> and quit or can be headhunted away. And then there goes your business.
I dislike unnecessary bloat, be it in software or in org design, as much as the next guy, but staking your company's long-term future on superheroes (or superpowers, as it's for some inexplicable reason still fashionable to say) is a recipe for disaster.
If anything, I'm hoping that the increase in self-hosting (if even by only just reasonably tech-savvy users at first) will start putting more and more pressure on the ISPs and associated infrastructure (from municipal to federal or however it is structured in your country).
Because at the end of the day, in most places connectivity is very heavily asymmetric, and as soon as you start self-hosting anything addressable from outside your LAN, your connection will go bust for all practical purposes.
https://nanoclaw.dev