To be clear, my definition "ignoring" a warning is just blindly clicking, not deciding to proceed after careful thought.
As for the Great Cannon and/or Quantum Insert, since packets can be routed in strange ways due to the speed of light making some routes you would not expect the quickest, I'd stand by my assertion that clicking through a warning to achieve integrity after examining it and seeing it is from Github, a place it is common to stand up a website then add a custom domain name, is reasonably secure especially on a technical discussion site like HN.
Correct, although the speed of light doesn't have anything to do with it (and the speed of the signal never reaches the theoretical speed of light, it's more like the speed of signals through a combination of copper, fiber, whatever else). It'd be the same if we were performing IP over Avian Carriers. The routing is at the mercy of all the IPS hardware and IXes between source and destination, which make their decisions of where to route your packets based on several factors (including possibly NSA/Chinese/whatever intervention)
> after examining it and seeing it is from Github, a place it is common to stand up a website then add a custom domain name, is reasonably secure
I mentioned this in a different reply, but I don't think this is the case. The government of China is just as capable of creating a GitHub Pages as anyone else.
This is also a dangerous assumption. If 95% of HN is outside of China, they'll have no issue with the website, but that validation is meaningless for the 5% behind the Great Firewall (percentages invented).
> Well if we think the site is a honeypot
That's not the logical assumption to make. A honeypot would have a valid certificate.
A broken certificate simply means either a) the website you are visiting is misconfigured, or b) a third party has intercepted your (possibly you, *personally*, and no-one else) communication with that website. You are not communicating with the website, you are communicating with the 3rd party. This might mean something as stupid as your ISP injecting ads into websites (a thing that happened before https was so prevalent), or it could mean a government-level actor with a more nefarious agenda.
Bypassing the warning by clicking "proceed anyway" and bypassing it by visiting the http endpoint are both dangerous, the former is simply less dangerous. A technical user can evaluate the risk, which many times are very low, but most users can't.
If your threat model includes the Great Cannon (which you cited), ignoring a browser warning is actively dangerous. So in fact it is you that's confusing vulnerable people.