My understanding is that TPM is secure, and Win 11 still supports TPM. Am I mistaken and/or misunderstanding your statement that Microsoft is enforcing a hardware requirement with a known back door?
Here's a significantly more credible (stacksmashing) video that demonstrates how ineffective some TPM implementations are. If the TPM was integrated into the CPU die, this attack would likely not be possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTl4vEednkQ
Despite the TPM being a pretty good and useful idea as a secure enclave for storing secrets, I'm concerned that giving companies the ability to perform attestation of your system's "integrity" will make the PC platform less open. We may be headed towards the same hellscape that we are currently experiencing with mobile devices.
Average folks aren't typically trying to run Linux or anything, so most people wouldn't even notice if secure boot became mandatory over night and you could only run Microsoft-signed kernels w/ remote attestation. Nobody noticed/intervened when the same thing happened to Android, and now you can't root your device or run custom firmware without crippling it and preventing the use of software that people expect to be able to use (i.e. banking apps, streaming services, gov apps, etc.).
Regardless, this is more of a social issue than a technical issue. Regulatory changes (lol) or mass revolt (also somewhat lol) would be effective in putting an end to this. The most realistic way would be average people boycotting companies that do this, but I highly doubt anyone normal will do that, so this may just be the hell we are doomed for unless smaller manufacturers step up to the plate to continue making open devices.
Sure let’s just centralize hardware attestation to Microsoft’s cloud tied to a Microsoft account with keys you can’t change what could possibly go wrong?
This is all publicly documented by Microsoft you just need to translate their doublespeak.
Google is doing does the exact same thing and people were sounding the alarms when they did it but Microsoft gets a pass?
Use ChaGPT to outsource your critical thinking for you because I’m not gonna do it.
I've looked into this fella before because he didn't pass the smell test. He's running a grift selling schlocky cell phones and cloud services. His videos are excessively clickbait-y and show minimal understanding of the actual tech, it's more or less concentrated disinformation and half-understood talking points. GrapheneOS devs also had something to say about him: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/20165-response-to-dishonest...
I vehemently reject the idea that the left believes, or even phrases their policies to imply, that men, young men, or white men are "the problem". There is a portion of society experiencing persecution bias, and I'm not singaling out any group(s) with that statement. We will never again progress as a society as long as we continue to view the success of someone else as our failure. This goes both ways.
The article lists a number of issues, and 90% of them apply to everyone in our society, not just men, not just the young, not just white people. Why do these young white men read "we the people" and not see it literally applying to all humans? Martin Luther King Jr's speech was as much about little black boys and girls holding hands with little white boys and girls. This isn't exclusion.
>Why do these young white men read "we the people" and not see it literally applying to all humans?
Because we live in a society in which white supremacy still holds real political and cultural power due to the the structures of systemic racism and colonialism on which it was founded, and because we've accepted the asinine "pendulum" premise that implies both sides (in this case, pro and anti racist) of any political axis are equally valid.
No one is claiming that men or white men are the problem per se except maybe some rage baiters online. Patriarchy and white supremacy are problems, however. Rape culture and toxic masculinity are problems. There are many aspects of our modern capitalist society in which the success of someone comes at the cost of another's failure, because it was designed to be so. And often, although not always, the current of oppression to power leads from female to male, and non-white to white. That's just a fact.
Speaking of MLK Jr, read what he had to say about well meaning white liberals. He thought they were worse than the Klan. The last thing he would have advocated was a "color-blind" way of seeing the world.
>Speaking of MLK Jr...The last thing he would have advocated was a "color-blind" way of seeing the world.
Where did you get that idea? Retcon much?
Doctor King said[0]:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with
its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and
nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black
girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as
sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.
The last thing he would have advocated was a "color-
blind" way of seeing the world.
Which is ridiculous (your link[1] notwithstanding) on its face. Whether Dr. King meant six days from that speech or six centuries from that speech, he specifically called for a society that didn't care about melanin content.
Claiming that since we weren't there in 1963 and still aren't there -- meaning there's still work to be done -- doesn't invalidate or diminish the aspirational content of that speech, nor does it reduce the power and value of that aspiration.
While the article you linked claims that bigoted assholes have tried to hijack the words I quoted as "arguments" against efforts to bring real equality to all humans in the US, that doesn't make Dr. King's aspirations any less important or valuable.
I am nonplussed by your shallow dismissal of Dr. King -- whatever the reason. For shame!
>If you only read this one thing then you might come away with this misunderstanding.
>MLK supported reparations and other policies that explicitly provided for black people.
What misunderstanding? Of course MLK supported (and rightly so) a variety of things to make those who'd been oppressed, spit on, beaten, enslaved and murdered for centuries de facto full citizens and members of US society, not just de jure.
Once we've achieved that, then Doctor King's dream will be fulfilled. That I refer to his aspirations (which, sadly, GP blithely dismissed) isn't in conflict with the idea that until such a de facto state is achieved positive steps toward that (including, but not limited to, those advocated by Dr. King) are still required.
There is no dichotomy or cognitive dissonance here -- at least not for me.
>The tl;dr is that we aren't there yet, and pretending otherwise allows the status quo of systemic racism to persist unchallenged.
Where, exactly, did I say anything of the sort? I won't leave you in suspense -- I said nothing of the kind, nor did I imply anything like it.
Rather, I took issue with (my perception of at least) your shallow dismissal of Dr. King's aspiration. Especially as I share that aspiration and am quite in favor of achieving the goal he set out there.
No, we're not there yet. But that doesn't mean Dr. King was lying. It just means we have more work to do.
>This part of the conversation is always tedious so I'll just post some articles and bow out.
No I haven't retconned anything, I've just read more of King's words than that single part of that single speech. This part of the conversation is always tedious so I'll just post some articles and bow out.
The tl;dr is that we aren't there yet, and pretending otherwise allows the status quo of systemic racism to persist unchallenged.
> ... the left believes, or even phrases their policies to imply, that...
There's no meaningful "Left" policy in the US. We only have two Neoliberal parties. There's no "Leftist" Heritage Foundation, say. There's no PAC promoting socialized healthcare, for example.
This, frankly, strengthens your argument—the Democrats and mainstream liberalism don't espouse any feminist antipatriarchal ideology.
The meaning of a word or phrase within a community of speakers is determined by what is meant and understood when that word or phrase is used among that community of speakers.
You may have preferences about what certain words or phrases are used to mean, and that’s legitimate, and it furthermore is legitimate for you to pursue those preferences.
However, the previous commenter was not incorrect in using the phrase “the left” as they did. They were using it in a way that is a well established and understood way of using the phrase.
Now, I admit that I’ll sometimes feign misunderstanding when someone uses the word “literally” in ways counter to my preferences, so I’m noticing that my behavior might be slightly hypocritical. I could argue that I don’t say that their usage is “incorrect” or that they shouldn’t use the word as they do (indeed, I will typically state the opposite, that they aren’t “incorrect” or doing anything wrong by using it as they are), and therefore am not being hypocritical, but I’m not sure that’s compelling.
In any case, everyone knew what that person meant by “the left”, and I personally find this insistence on “correcting” that use of the term, to be a bit annoying. Though, of course, I recognize that you likely find the use in question of the phrase “the left” annoying. So, uh. Hm.
I’m not sure where that leaves us. I guess we’ll both just have to live with being occasionally annoyed, because I don't think we’ll be able to coordinate to change either behavior?
>In any case, everyone knew what that person meant by “the left”, and I personally find this insistence on “correcting” that use of the term, to be a bit annoying. Though, of course, I recognize that you likely find the use in question of the phrase “the left” annoying. So, uh. Hm.
Then I shall annoy you further. I, as an American, am clear on the fact that there is no serious "left-wing" party or movement in the US. The farthest we may get is Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are in point of fact centrists who lean slightly left.
The US Democratic Party runs from center-right to center-left, but much more on the center-right side.
Calling a center-right party "the left" is disingenuous in the extreme, IMNSHO.
That they're "left" of the far-right Republican Party isn't saying much. The Republican Party today would reject folks like Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan as communists, given their respective foci on environment regulation, universal healthcare, immigration and a raft of other issues that were never "leftist."
I get it. It's nice to have the cover of "conservative" as that presents the idea that the views of those who call themselves that are trying to "conserve" the good things about our society.
But the Republican Party of today isn't conservative. It is a far right (think Nigel Farage/Reform, AfD, etc.) radical reactionary party uninterested in democratic norms unless they try to use them to beat their opponents over the head with them to win political points.
U mad now bro? I hope so. The problem is that you're mad at the wrong folks.
I suppose it's possible, but it seems less likely to me because ADHD is a life long neurodevelopmental disorder that shows [visible physical changes in the brain on scans](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7879851/). That said, there are statistically more people with narcolepsy who have ADHD, and the same goes for sleep apnea. There's a number of hypotheses I've read as to why, to name a couple: related epigenetic causes, or [possible misdiagnosis](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7336577/) (narcolepsy is much harder to diagnose than ADHD if you don't have textbook symptoms). So there is definitely something there.
This is fun to see right now. I've been playing around with CRT shaders in retroarch for the last few days. My main goal is to use the [CRT-Beam-simulator](https://github.com/blurbusters/crt-beam-simulator) at 120hz and get some sort of CRT slot or shadow mask at the same time. I've landed on some settings I enjoy for N64 games, and it really has improved the experience for me.
On the post's notes on the Sonic waterfall effect, the [Blargg NTSC Video Filter](https://github.com/CyberLabSystems/CyberLab-Custom-Blargg-NT...) is intended to recreate that signal artifact, but similar processing is included in a lot of the CRT shaders that are available. I found that RGB had a visual artifact when moving that made the waterfall flicker, but composite didn't, so I played on that setting. Running it with the beam simulator is probably causing some of that.
>The slowdown in immigration means the US doesn’t need such robust job gains to keep the unemployment rate stable, suggesting the recent slide in payrolls may not be so worrisome, according to new research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
If I'm reading this correctly, the argument being made is that U.S. population is declining now, so the job market shrinking doesn't matter. Isn't that...equally troubling...at least to the same people who are enacting the policies causing this?
Fundamentally, if immigration declines, you do not need as many new jobs to keep the labor market in balance. The US population is barely declining at this point, so this wouldn't be an issue until wages climb from labor shortages beyond what the market can bear in each sector being discussed. Based on current US profit data, we have a long way to go, all over the economy (profits are unpaid wages, broadly speaking; lots of room to raise wages based on observable value transfer flows).
There are labor "shortages" in the sense that wages are going up slowly (you see this in Amazon and Bank of America raising their minimum wage to the low $20s), which is new for an economic system and its participants unfamiliar with a population cohort of workers that is starting to shrink and will do so far into the future due to demographic dynamics. With that said, there is still a long way to go to create enough "labor shortage" (workers aging out of prime working age population cohort, reduced immigration) to push wages up to living wages for domestic workers (which is $25-$50/hr, depending on geography and target historical purchasing power parity).
(~4M Boomers retire a year, ~11k/day, ~2M people 55+ die every year, about half of which are in the labor force; that means ~13k-14k workers leave the labor force every day in the US, ~400k/month)
I am curious if the timing have impacted the inability to measure a benefit. AI is rolling out at the same time as widespread return to office campaigns. Remote work was widely studied and touted as improving efficiency, but no one is showing the drop for RTO. Is AI in part just balancing it out? There's also an ongoing massive brain drain. Many companies are either laying off their most tenured and competent employees, or they are making life miserable for them in the hopes that they quit.
All of this said, using AI in your back end takes a huge amount of time from your users and employees. You have to vary multiple prompts, you have to make the output sane, touch it up, etc. The most useful part of AI for me has been using it to learn something new, or push through a task that I otherwise couldn't do. I was able to partially rewrite a logging window to reduce CPU use significantly. It took me over two weeks of back and forth with AI to figure out a workable solution and implement it into the software. I competent programmer probably could have done it better than I did in less than an hour. There's no business benefit to a help desk person being able to spend 2 weeks writing code that an engineer would be much better suited to handling. But maybe that engineer could write it in 10 minutes instead of an hour if they used AI to understand the software first.
Problem is with RTO is companies aren't getting the benefit of using AI to manage all their internal knowledge. Bringing people back into the office defeats the purpose of having this central "worker" who can answer queries, point people in the right direction etc. People will just fallback on shouting across the office and scheduling pointless meetings.
Really companies failed to make remote work because it meant giving up a lot of middle-management power and some people realising their job means very little.
Likely, no. In my industry, I see a fraction of ICs using it well, a fraction of leadership using it for absolute dog shit idea generation, and the remainder using it to make their jobs easier in the short run, while incurring debt in the long run since nobody is "learning" from AI summaries and most people don't seem to be reading the generated "AI notes" sent in emails.
By and large, I think AI is going to hurt my workplace based on the current trajectory, but it won't be realized until we are in a hard hole to dig out of.
I don't know about main suspect, but autoimmune disease has been known for a long time to increase your risk of cancer. I have Celiac disease, so an increased risk of stomache, intestinal and bowel cancer.
Honestly, this article is kind of worrying for me, personally. I have many symptoms after two years of treatment with diet alone. Further evidence may eventually show treatment with antibiotics or steroids for people like me may lower more risks then it raises.
