Presumably GP was implying that adding a second plane increases the chance of a crash, not claiming that it increases the conseuqences should it happen
Would it really be lower on the bot net in the majority of cases? I'd imagine that real users probably wouldn't want to have their entire cpu spent on this.
Not only that, real users actually want to use the service, not overload it. A real user might only make one request a second. A botnet device is trying to make a thousand requests per second to overload the server. Even if they each have the same CPU as a normal user, now each node in the botnet can only make as many requests per second as a user or the user can outbid them.
Man in the middle attack typically implies an unwanted third party, which in this case is not true since Cloudfare is explicitly and voluntarily trusted by the host server. It wouldn't be all that different if the web server had the browserintegrity checks developed themselves.
This is precisely what Cloudflare is doing to end users - causing problems like OP (and myriad others) experience by slowing down and/or blocking major chunks of the internet
I understand that it may be viewed as unpleasant, but ultimately if you install a proxy on your end that the server does not like (say an ad-blocker), I don't think it would be fair for the server to say its suffering a MITM attack. Likewise, even if the client is not happy with the third party the server is requesting, it still doesn't make sense to call it a MITM, IMO.
If it's truly the case that you're paying for Google Search, that would be an even bigger incentive for consumers to leave to a different search engine (in essence, they would be paid to switch).
Texas operates its own independent electrical grid (presumably to avoid federal energy regulations, though I'm not sure)[1], whereas the rest of America operates roughly on two interstate grid regions. I would agree that it's ignorant to claim Texas is doing nothing against climate change though.
