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.
You’re incorrect. I am disgusted by actual abuse, but I am also legitimately disgusted by the idea of anyone having sexualised thoughts about children. If you can tell me that these people have no control over that then you must be able to comprehend that as a parent I have no control over my protective instincts.
The idea of people who are sexually attracted to my children, or any children, being anywhere in the vaguest vicinity of them triggers very deep instinctual reactions. Whether those people intend to act or not.
Well, if you're worried about thoughts, what do you suppose will create a safer environment for your offspring? De-stigmatization of problematic urges, allowing the afflicted to openly participate in society and receive assistance, or active and violent ostracization and persecution, forcing each and every afflicted person into immediate, life-long and hopeless secrecy?
Just like anyone else you have the ability to act against your immediate instincts, because sometimes, as exemplified by the premise of this whole thread, instincts are just shit.
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.
Which politicians (supposedly from foreign countries?) trigger a better sentiment?
Good question. Most any, really, but you probably didn't mean literally only just "better".If I had to look within the CDU/CSU and had to settle for "not entirely filled with contempt for human life" I suppose I'd end up with Merkel, to my own surprise. More contemporary Serap Güler, maybe.I don't generally find myself triggered by Nouripour.If I increased the requirements to "Not fundamentally blighted by neoliberal economics" I think I'd have to go back to Gysi and Fischer. Bodo Ramelow, if need be. Honorary mention for Martin Sonneborn, because even if I disagree with him I can at least get a laugh out of it.
Internationally the pickings are slim. I think I generally don't mind what Sanna Marin has to say. For about a year I was smitten by Abiy Ahmed, just like the rest of the world. That went away quickly. I'd like to see another Vaclav Havel one day.
I could live with Albert Schweitzer and Fred Rogers rising from the grave to erect an unlikely global totalitarian dual dictatorship.
There's this funny thing whenever I read or hear "Dobrindt says:"; everything after that is just white noise to me.Maybe I should get that checked out. Then again I appear to be leading a happier life than others around me.
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.
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?"?
Might be more of a thought experiment at this point. I worry that, with a global advertising industry now operating at the same scale as the entire petrochemical sector, whatever bastions of democracy may be left around the world are on the clock either way.
Hah, I'd say there's a non-zero chance. These places are so violent. I'd love to join in on some conversations over there if they wouldn't all turn so bloodthirsty that quickly.
Ironical since left wing terrorism is a real issue in Europe that is more prevalent than right wing one ( if u consider Islamic one isn’t right wing which funny enough is supported by leftist and fight by righty)
There is some kind of misunderstanding here at some point, because I cannot follow you.Here's a good rule of thumb: If, anwhere, members of minorities can expect to experience day-to-day disadvantages and violence, then there's a right-wing extremism problem. If, anwhere, members of the dominant socio-economic group can expect to experience day-to-day disadvantages and violence, well, that's a left-wing extremism problem.Now... which of these problems exists and which one doesn't?
How it will be implemented: Law enforcement now have to waste their resources previously spent on going after the far-right for their hate crimes on going after the far left.Yeah always wonder why freedom of speech wasn’t an issue while it was targeted toward a narrow position that you didn’t agree with
There's no Ying-Yang situation going on here. Don't mistakenly equate "ostracising an objectively incorrect thing" with "not agreeing with a narrow position" 😜Right-wing extremism is an actual problem, left-wing extremism is an imaginary one. Nobody likes to see resources wasted on imaginary problems.
Who on earth came up with that. Are thieves rebranding for IPOs nowadays?