In the interest of using precise language, I do believe that, in the realm of all possibilities, there can conceivably be toxic forms of empathy.

Which situations can you conceive that would be made worse by all involved parties understanding each others feelings?

Never. There’s always more to do. Once you can produce food, shelter and entertainment with zero effort

We’ve been able to do that for about 100 years now. All of humanity’s technological problems have been solved - on paper - for generations. There’s unfortunately never been a magical consolidation period where all the hungry were fed and all the exposed were sheltered. That’s not something that automatically happens.

The technology and production capacity to raise Somalia to the same literacy, living standard and life expectancy as Denmark exists. It would just require surplus growth and production capacity to go to Somalia and not Denmark for a few generations. Example nations are arbitrary, adjust as needed.

Oh, that is good news. Hurray!

Thanks, I didn’t know most any of that stuff!

So the bootloader also gets updated, and new versions of the bootloader need to get signed. So if the BIOS is responsible for signing the bootloader, then how does the operating system update the bootloader?

Does that happen often? I had, apparently incorrectly, assumed those things were more or less fire and forget.

Kinda. The problem here, IMO, is that Secure boot conflates two usecases/threat models into one.

Huh, I think that might indeed be the central problem, good call.

You must explicitly ask for this setup from the Linux distro installers (at least, all the one’s I’ve used). By default, /boot, where the kernel and drivers are stored, is stored unencrypted in another external partition, and not in the LUKS encrypted partition.

Wait what, that just seems like home directory encryption with extra steps 🤦 I guess I’ll go back to Veracrypt then.

That’s not a question.

Looks like some kind of advertising account with either a product or an idea to sell.

But this breaks automatic updates without entering the BIOS

Maybe I’m misunderstanding a technical aspect here, but wouldn’t only the bootloader need to be signed? To my understanding a tamper-proof system already assumes full disk-encryption anyway, so any kinds of automatic updates would be happening in a black box anyway, wouldn’t it?

and is just not feasible except for the PC on your desk at home

That’s probably a different and more value-based discussion and I’m quite sure you didn’t intend it that way, but it’s hard for me to put into words how much this sentence structure offends me 😅
A benefit to the users in front of their personal computers can never be an exception, it is (… ought to be) always the point of everything, the end goal. Having a solution that benefits end users and puts other entities at a disadvantage is always preferable over a solution that puts end users at a disadvantage for the benefit of other entities.

As almost always the answer is “it depends”.
From a security perspective you want to make sure that what your system boots is trusted and not tampered with by a third party. If your threat model includes people with physical access or malicious software (root kits) manipulating your operating system, then secure boot can help mitigating if you set it up correctly.
If that’s none of your concern, then you probably shouldn’t bother with it.

It’s such a silly system. Could have just had it in a way that automatically trusts only whatever system(s) is/are installed while the BIOS is unlocked so any user benefits from secure boot as soon as they set a BIOS password.

Yes, it hurts discoverability. How can you have a community without people?

I’d like to ask it the other way around: How many people would it need until you’d say “Yep, that’s a community alright.”?

The alternative is no morality at all. And in that case, you’re either following the law out of love for your state and/or fellow human, or because you don’t want to be sent to prison for breaking the law.

You’re going in a circle there. If individually define moral action as “an action that cannot be derived from anything but some kind of supernatural being”, then yeah, you can dismiss anything else on normative grounds. But then what’s the point of asking “How can something be morally wrong if there is no God?”?

Interesting, how does that work? Is it some kind of modified Android version with more restrictions? I’d assumed that unlike the usual smart TV’s you could at least freely install Software on the Shield. I mean, in the end it’s still an operating system developed by an advertising corporation, but Firefox+uBlock Origin has so far been bulletproof even on Android phones, at least to my understanding.

Buy an ad-subsidized machine, be forced to watch ads, unfortunately.

I’m a user. I just want to run the software. I don’t really care about the means of delivery. If it’s not available via package manager, then I have to get it some other way.

I was an idiot and bought a high end TPLink router, I can’t even use Vlans without signing up for their back door service.

Hm, at least with their enterprise equipment you can completely disable Omada.

There are lots of traditional crafts channels from all the corners of the world, if that scratches your itch. How about something like this?

On windows at least, Arma 3 uses battleye which is absolutely kernel level anticheat. It may be different on a Linux install, but I wouldn’t expect it.

You get to choose whether to use it or not.

Off the top of my head: Anything Valve (CS2, Dota 2, Deadlock, TF2), the entire Civilization series and Arma 3. Last time I played them Starcraft, Overwatch 2 and Valorant worked fine as well, though it has been a while and I don’t know if they’ve gone the way of Apex Legends since then.

There is no “dilemma” here. There is no solution or compromise to be found here. Kernel level anti-cheat systems are simply not needed. While the games the tout them figure that out I’ll simply play all the other ones that already have figured it out.

Relevant Brennan Lee Mulligan sketch

Driving a car and doing it regularly is the most dangerous task most anyone living in any number of western societies with service-based economies will ever undertake. There is nothing wrong with treating it accordingly - with awe, care and a healthy portion of respect and fear.
But whether the decision not to do it is a good one depends on your life circumstances. Do you live or plan on living in a big European city? Yeah, you don’t need a car in your life, good riddance. Do you live in a North American suburb or rural area? Er… not using a car is probably not an option unless you relocate.

I had a pretty bad car accident due to failing to yield the right of way (I struggle with multitasking)

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here. It should go without saying that when one is driving, one’s attention should ideally be focused on nothing else and multitasking therefore shouldn’t be a factor.

How do you know? Statistics reported by websites… which are recording user agent strings?

If you randomly stopped people in the streets and asked them what a user agent was, you’d get a certain percentage of folks that give you the correct answer. That percentage is the upper ceiling for any possible error margin that websites recording user agent strings have in attributing those strings to actual browsers, since nobody unaware of that term will know how or be interested in changing their user agent.

Do you think it likely that this percentage is going to be in any way, shape or form… impactful, considering that most people won’t be able to tell you what a browser is? 😜