That is a very strong assertion. Please provide the WTO ordinances in question and/or case law. Unfounded assertions do not add to the discussion.
Do you seriously believe Apple would have gone this malicious compliance route rather than pursuing WTO grievances through their army of lobbyists if they thought that had half a chance of succeeding?
Are all the display options using PWM now? I’ve been staying with the XR because the XS caused headaches for me. Curious if they’ve gotten their frequency up to a bearable level.
The assertion that other countries should simply abandon their sovereign regulators' powers is baseless hubris. The fact that the US seems happy to allow corporate titans to reach ever new sizes does not mean anyone else is on board.
If the US wants their regulators' decisions to carry weight in another country, they can pay for the privilege via trade agreements, same as it ever was.
1) Your comment added nothing, but then this wasn't a high-value thread anyway.
2) Any pronoun in that case would be superfluous. "Holy crap! Congratulations!" would be far more intuitive to native english speakers. Choosing to add a gendered pronoun without knowing the correct gender is just... odd. That's exactly the type of situation most would avoid where possible: you omit gendered pronouns unless you know.
You're building a strawman. No one is calling for "a Utopia-esque society where there is perfect freedom of choice [and] perfectly equal distributions of any sort."
One does not need to call for that in order to find the current representation of women in engineering/CS lower than desirable.
Continuing on the theme of using the sources presented in this thread: do you find it more likely that Google's worldwide tech workforce is 83% male because A) there is "no causal influence, insidious or otherwise" and there is perfect freedom of choice or because B) there are systemic factors at play?
But... your previous post specifically says "China is willing to kidnap people out of Thailand" and goes on to say "I really hope the U.S. never comes close to this".
Can you explain how exactly the U.S. has yet to "come close to" your list? Your post created the very "us vs them" separation you now claim to disagree with. The child post was fairly clearly just answering that statement
And while we're talking deflection, you are the one who took a thread about the US border and its impact on travellers and made it about civil rights abuses by the rest of the world. Yes, they are all important; no, it is usually not possible to solve them all at once.
That's approaching a chicken-and-egg problem. Other parties are working on verifiable open hardware, but their work is only worth so much if any useful software can be tampered with at multiple other points in the chain.
Reproducible builds are an absolutely achievable way of adding trust to that particular step and reducing the overall attack surface.
We don't need to live in a world of two extremes, 'curl http:// | sudo bash' or hand-built silicon.
Any plans to offer a 16GB RAM version? The commentary from Qubes users in the 3.2 release thread [1] seems to indicate 8GB would be borderline for Qubes.
I'll bite. The original article is from the Register. If you work at Microsoft and read HN I'd expect you have a reasonable idea of their average article quality.
I don't think they were trying to make any particular point rather than generate pageviews with a combination of "haha M$" and righteous anti-backdoor anger.
That said, I myself agree with other commenters that your stance "this isn't a backdoor because it requires physical access; if you've given up physical access you're already screwed" is beyond disingenuous. Disregarding a login screen bypass by the same logic would be rightly pilloried. Yes, physical security is the hardest to improve, but that's exactly the carrot Microsoft has used to try and convince the world Secure Boot isn't a pure anti-consumer move.
Activity Controls is whether or not Google logs Web/App activity. The Ads opt-out controls interest-based ads as a whole, including from Web & App Activity if enabled.
Do you seriously believe Apple would have gone this malicious compliance route rather than pursuing WTO grievances through their army of lobbyists if they thought that had half a chance of succeeding?