Not quite. The Wikipedia page is worth a look through if you don’t want to click on an http page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_lesson

You could read it through internet archive if it's this important.

the page is nearly just a .txt file.

the reason for https is MITM injection, regardless of original content

ah, didn't know that. thanks!

If you'd like to dig more into the history, let's encrypt did so much to enable the movement to https by making certs free, and chrome with the red text and warnings in the url bar, which has since graduated to a full on page that requires clicking to still go despite the warnings

So what? Are you worried someone replaces the txt with a different txt?

what if they add js?

What if the original page is untrustworthy and adds JS?

then probably don't give this blog post your personal financial information just to be safe.

Take your pick:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190401161916/http://www.incomp...

or

https://web.archive.org/web/20260727174324/http://www.incomp...

Out of curiousity, I like security just as much as the next guy and ensure that certs are valid, ciphers are fresh, and protocols are mature, but I am also not really concerned with an informational site that runs http being browsed. Would you mind sharing what your concern would be with browsing this content over http?

MITM injection by your ISP or government

Use uBlock Origin and add custom filters to block scripts on http:// ; e.g.

    http://$inline-script,domain=~localhost
    http://$script,domain=~localhost

Inject what exactly? Why should I trust incompleteideas.net more than my ISP or government?

extremely HN comment

Here's an archive version[0] of that page under SSL

[0]: https://archive.is/DQU4a