resisting mass surveillance
Also, whatever value Clinton saw in self-hosting.
Downsides: ui starting to show its age. No container support.
The typical spf record has ip addresses, blocks of ip addresses, or hosts but I don’t think just v=spf1 mx ~all.
If you use a third-party hosting service for webmail, IMAP, etc, where they might also handle outgoing for particular clients, or for hosted outbound services (EasyDNS offers this), then you would usually "include:" their SPF records rather than copy their rules and addresses.
Theoretically, hardcoding some addresses might be useful as a performance optimization or failsafe, but I'm not sure the value is that great, and it adds to the workload and disruption risk if and when you have to move networks. But maybe the value is greater than I'm aware.
Maybe the author left out the host in the assumption that the reader would understand that part but essentially mx -all tells mail servers and inbox providers to soft fail all mail from the domain.
A slightly lower contrast may look nicer (and be more accurate to printed text) but often sites are excessive with it. It may not even be exactly the designer's fault since their monitor's gamma and contrast will probably be better than the average visitor.
Another related problem is that of font weight. Fonts too thin can also hamper readability but the weight on-screen will be variable with the user's font settings and how exactly it's set up with aliasing, shaping etc. To add to that some digital fonts are displayed at the wrong weight because they were designed with bleed in mind.
Maybe you should turn your brightness down or add some more lighting in your room? Pure white shouldn't be blinding you.
