If the service gives a 301/308 response, it should in theory rewrite all bookmarks and things like this, but that also opens up security issues especially when it comes to password managers.
I have this pathological example, I have a 30GB journal dump from bcachefs, and compressed it down with lz4 and zstd to a sata SSD, the compression ratios are 6.8% and 3% respectively (and this with default level 3!), it takes 14s to ripgrep through the lz4 version, and 11s with the zstd version. So even at 500MB/s zstd is faster for decompression.
The point of locking the CPU to a specific vendor is to reduce the trusted user base in the cloud.
Currently you have to trust AMD, the Vendor, and the data center with your data.
The goal of verification of the firmware at such a low level is to eliminate tampering by the data center.
Having another feature like SEV (encrypted memory) combined with this lets you create a secure remote box that is fully encrypted at a very early stage in the boot process.
This reduces the chance of a malicious entity at a data center from tamping with the firmware to exfiltrate your keys.
Other people here are just ignorant and think it's being done purely for profit with no benefit to the end user.
Most people here don't seem to understand the entire point of this is to stop hardware tampering.
The goal of AMD's SEV and other features is that the only way to compromise the system is to tamper the wires between the CPU die and the IO die, that all data going outside the CPU die is encrypted, an extra hardware TPM chip module let you MITM the keys being sent to the CPU, having the keys stored in the CPU using fTPM, and never plaintext / keys leave or enter the CPU via PCIe or memory bus.
the "chipset" is literally just a PCIe/USB multiplexer these days, the CPU has no access to external hardware until after the firmware has loaded, the firmware has routines for turning on the memory and memory controller, PCIe etc, I don't think people understand just how utterly useless the CPU is without the firmware.
No you can't. AMD builds the TPM in to the CPU, with AMD's encrypted memory feature (SEV), in theory you do not have to trust the data center an all.
The CPU boots, loads a verified firmware using PSB, initializes a safe environment in SEV, your entire boot procedure and data is encrypted and safe using FDE and SEV keys stored in the TPM using PCR's.
No one is saying "in an ideal world" that's a strawman.
Fact checkers, corporations, the media, the state, and any of the elite are just people and so extremely irrational, Why on earth would you want to give any of them power above and beyond the general public, it's so easy to manipulate the so called "rational" with selective publication of information. Do we just forget that covid human to human spreading was "fake news" for an entire month, and basically changed the course of history because some bureaucracy decided it had more authority on the matter than a doctor treating the patients.
Or what about the "Ricard Spencer is a nice guy in Germany" effect, because people in Europe can't see the hate speech he makes, so they think he's fairly reasonable person.
To me it seems that it's the general public, from Snowden to Li Wenliang that is keeping fake news in check, not the elite, keeping the public in check.
The problem with signal and whatsapp's design with phone numbers is that it's used as your public facing ID. if you give over your number to someone, they put it in their address book on their phone and then Facebook finds common friends etc on their phone, and then you're all of a sudden doxed because of other peoples habits.
A lot of girls on dating apps prefer snapchat because they can just block the person and there's far smaller chance of getting stalked or harassed.
Matrix does not expose your email address or phone number to people you connect with, so you're a lot safer.
True, and I agree that using a phone number is an issue. It is being used to block spam, but doesn't do that great of a job on Telegram still. I am curious what other ways you think could be used to help block spammers.
I'm not sure what you mean by walled garden, but I assume you mean that you can't setup your own servers and join the network? What's stopping a federated network from forming a cartel and blocking small players, or servers they deem morally objectionable?
By walled garden I think they mean the servers. Because the app isn't a walled garden. It is open source though centralized (Moxie has argued extensively about how this allows faster development. Though ironically Signal is known for slow development). But the servers are also open sourced so there's nothing stopping people from creating private (or even federated) "Signal" apps. You just couldn't call it Signal in name. And I don't blame Signal for keeping their servers to themselves. They're not a data center and already running a tight ship.
I've never really understood the argument. Just because someone hasn't done something doesn't mean it is a walled garden.
Not only Signal refuses to have any 3rd party server federate with theirs, but they also refuse 3rd party clients. This is exactly the definition of walled garden.
> Critique of liberalism...Critique of liberalism: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993, was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the U.S. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence" including affirmative action,[86] color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle.[87] They said that the liberal concept—value-neutral law— contributed to maintenance of the U.S. racially unjust social order.
> Storytelling/counterstorytelling and 'naming one's own reality'":': The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression.
This doesn't sound like history or science, it sounds like personal, highly subjective anecdotes, maybe even propaganda (see Jussie Smollett).
> Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress.
this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts.
> Cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (including black nationalism).
Because we definitely want to teach our kids segregation is good.
Now tell me how CRT is actually teaching objective historical facts?
Because in my eyes, this is not a philosophy that cares about facts, or liberal values, or even racism.
>> Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress.
> this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts.
A revisionist means "examining and trying to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is"
I.e. we've understood the facts incorrectly, let's take another look to try to understand them correctly. This is literally what people who study history do every day. I read a great blog recently dispelling myths about what medieval life was like. Definitely revisionist, super interesting.
> noun Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.
> noun A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position.
CRT, Critical Racial Theory, is a Marxist tradition. I don't mean Marxist as "bad" or "scary" but I mean as in descended from the Frankfurt School of thought which focused on the Marxist tradition.
CRT uses Revisionist reading as a tool to formulate reform of an existing system or dialog. It is a Trotsky-esque tactic of reading material with a preconceived notion to find a new end.
The second definition doesn't mean "revisionist" has some different meaning within marxist thinking. It means communists call people who back pedal the revolutionary language of marx to make it less radical "revisionists". The meaning is the same, it's just a special context where what you are revising and why are clearly defined.
> CRT uses Revisionist reading as a tool to formulate reform of an existing system or dialog.
The only way that re-interpreting the past as a tool to figure out how to change current systems is a bad thing, is if current systems are good. Given how things are for non-white people in america, I think it's clear that changing current systems is needed.
If you're worried because they are interpreting historical fact to fit their preconceived notion, well... yes, so are we all. We all have preconceived notions. Romans were clean and noble, while medieval people were filthy and never bathed. Every story I hear about either of those times is slotted into my preconceptions about romans or medieval people. Then one day an activist historian with an agenda teaches me that romans didn't have soap, but medieval people did... the facts support their idea that medieval people were cleaner than we portray them in movies and tv. Just because they had an agenda (the medieval period is maligned in culture) when they went looking for those facts, doesn't mean they're wrong.
The romans had soap and were well aware of both lye and unrefined ammonia for cleansing. They actually used ammonia for laundering clothes. Medieval people had soap too, but probably used a different process for making it than romans. (As to who was cleaner, it depends heavily on class, region and specific year.)
That's the problem with preconceived notions, they lead to bad scholarship. It's what made so many victorian era analysis of historic artifacts so poor - they were trying to reconstruct them with Victorian values.
No person can be truly neutral but you do your best to set aside preconceived notions. CRT argues that in some cases we shouldn't do that and reinforces storytelling - a fictional process - as an interpretive lens. That is not aligned with traditional scholarship and part of why Critical Theorists (at large) reject traditional scholarship. CRT is not a fact based tradition. (Crits would say it is a "critical" one)
CRT is a Marxist tradition but instead of a class divide it views through the fundamental lens of a racial divide. Just as the class divide is innate in Marxism so it is too in CRT. Re-reading existing texts to "contextualize" them and reframe them in alignment with this racial divide is the usage of Revisionism in the CRT (and likewise for fellow Critical Theories) nomenclature.
You can reject CRT wholesale AND still petition for better racial equality or the correcting of faults in any given country. CRT is not the only solution, nor does a rejection of CRT mean you accept the world as it is currently.
So... my point was that we have a cultural bias towards representing the romans as clean and medieval people as dirty - "As to who was cleaner, it depends heavily on class, region and specific year." So you agree with the core of the idea I was presenting, but you then immediately dismiss it as bad scholorship. Apologies, I didn't think I needed to google the details for this conversation - but let's correct the record: romans didn't have soap during the republican era, but they did during the roman empire. At least by 200CE, perhaps as much as a century earlier. Happy?
> That's the problem with preconceived notions, they lead to bad scholarship
I agree. E.g. missing the forest for the trees. As you just did.
