Second reason: killing manifest v2 to kneecap ad-blockers.
Third reason: banning 'trackmenot' extension from the chrome store since its purpose is to muddy search stats (enhancing privacy, but in a way that messes up Google's ad metrics and their history of your preferred search terms).
I hope you're right. But the only reason it hasn't gone as far as it has it because everyone watches them and pushes back. I remember the ARM-based Windows laptops they tried pushing, which had fully-locked bootloaders (WinRT?) That's their endgame...
Don't let your guard down. Maybe this time they'll fully pull the TPM/UEFI trigger and make it impossible to install any other OS on new PCs... they have lots of leverage over manufacturers to tighten the screws on the BIOS and boot process.
(I read somewhere, long ago, that some suspect he went after the Italian mob in NY merely to clear room for the Russian mob.. with attendant kickbacks to him for doing so... any juice to that?)
I don't currently run it myself -- I have some files in IPFS but haven't spun up the daemon on my own server in a while...
Hmm! I just checked their site and since I last looked into it they've added a nice desktop UI. I'll have to try it out myself again.
Hosting a node isn't like running a Tor exit node or anything -- you don't AFAIK host anything you don't explicitly put in there yourself, so there's no danger of accidentally serving something you wouldn't want to :)
I wish more people knew about IPFS -- a content-addressable, persistent filesystem. It's a peer-to-peer system that can offer durable backups to important info. Of course I'm a hypocrite as I realize I haven't been running my IPFS node lately due to upgrades... off I go to fix that.
Good point. But I think performance is still a greater priority for those who make purchasing decisions, rather than basic security, and that's the problem.
Fair enough, probably was hyperbole :) But performance does seem to be a higher priority than security; they can always spin PR after the next exploit, after all, users already have the CPU in their system, they've made their money; what are users really gonna do if an issue comes up after they've bought their box?
this vulnerability is only really meaningful on multi-user systems
Well, that says it all. CPU manufacturers have no incentive at all to secure the computations of multiple users on a single CPU (or cores on the same die)... why would they? They make more cash if everyone has to buy their own complete unit, and they can outsource security issues to 'the network' or 'the cloud'...
Years ago when I was in University this would have been a deathblow to the entire product line, as multi-user systems were the norm. Students logged into the same machines to do their assignments, employees logged into the same company servers for daily tasks.
I guess that isn't such a thing any more. But wow, what a sh*tshow modern CPU architecture has become, if concern for performance has completely overridden proper process isolation and security. We can't even trust that a few different users on the same machine can be separated properly due to the design of the CPU itself?
There is an awesome 'old rexxit' theme for lemmy, ask your favourite instance admin to install it (I don't know the proper name but they should be able to figure it out). I honestly forget I'm not on the old site sometimes.
Second reason: killing manifest v2 to kneecap ad-blockers.
Third reason: banning 'trackmenot' extension from the chrome store since its purpose is to muddy search stats (enhancing privacy, but in a way that messes up Google's ad metrics and their history of your preferred search terms).