The TPM is supposed to rely on a hardware signature match before unlocking. Booting from alternate media would fail that test and the TPM won't hand over the keys. And in fact, YellowKey does require you to boot from the internal drive into the recovery environment. Apparently the recovery environment unlocks the drive and relocks it.

Looking further, it uses some kind of pending file change tool in the System Volume Information folder to put a file on (I think) the mounted recovery system while the drive is unlocked so that it doesn't break the signature. Apparently Windows shipped the PE with an option to read an .ini file and just not re-lock the drive if an option is set.

This wouldn't be possible if you were modifying a binary because it wouldn't match the signing keys. But since they included an option to trivially set an .ini file, you are good. I'm betting you could manually create the file in the recovery environment too. The theatrics of the PoC with the flash drive seem to be more to obfuscate things.

Microsoft does store the key to your Microsoft account for non-managed computers. What it doesn't do is tell you the email address you used to create that account on the recovery screen.

At least for Macs, most Mac users have an iPhone that is signed into the same iCloud account and is also a trusted device that can be used to reset the password for that account.

You buy a computer with Windows 10/11 Home.

You sign in with a Microsoft account.

Microsoft backs up your encryption key and starts encrypting the drive. Yes, they call it "device encryption" and not Bitlocker, but that's only semantics because they had already branded Bitlocker as a Pro feature.

That was the whole reason. A lot of people don't know that.

That's why Elon left and made Grok.

It certainly does make sense. After all, mosquitoes primarily look for flower nectar and only go after blood for egg production. The two signals getting crossed just makes you look even better to them.

They might be talking about a laser powered one. I'm talking about something not much more complex than a robot lawnmower plus a couple cameras to make sure it's not trimming crops. Blades are cheaper than lasers.

Glyphosate is cheap enough, but are the resistant seeds?

Even that is probably more than needed. Ground-based drones could just trim back anything that isn't your preferred crop to near the ground. Leaving a short trimmed layer of weeds would probably help with soil erosion problems.

Most of that electricity gets converted back to heat. One thing that temperature differentials do is create wind. It doesn't really get completely taken from the system.

National infrastructure is a natural monopoly and should never be in the control of any corporation. I get your point about the free market, but why are we still leaving it in the hands of whichever company got there first? The grid should be just a transit network and the "buying." There is no "market" because it isn't economically feasible to build multiple sets of infrastructure.

We don't have state/federal highways that are run by private companies. Actually, that's not true. The Chicago Skyway is a "toll bridge" that is still considered as part of the federal Interstate highway system. There are a handful of others.

They're producing solar panels faster than they can use them domestically. Their energy needs are still rising faster than they can build out solar so of course they would need more coal too. They are maximizing their energy output, not prioritizing one type over another.

This is already why the US went after Iran. Economic stability in disguise. Population growth is slowing to the point that Social Security and Medicare will collapse under its obligations unless we can just continue to inflate our way out of things. And inflation only works for the US because the dollar still has value outside of the US because people are trading with it and holding it.

That makes no sense - we don't know the capacity of the fast-charge battery, and we don't know the charge time of the long-range battery. And the cost of the battery pack is a huge part of most EV pricing, putting two full-capacity but different battery technologies in one car would adds thousands and thousands to the sales price and would push vehicle weight to new, unbelievable, heights.

Putting two batteries in an EV makes as much sense as putting both a diesel and a gasoline engine in a vehicle, because 'one's good for long-haul driving', the other runs on cheaper gasoline and better for 'start-stop' driving in, say, a city-setting.

You've made it make no sense by making specifically the worst assumptions possible. Two batteries. One long haul and one fast charge but sized based on a reasonable usage pattern. Why would anyone mean two full capacity batteries? When the fast charge is topped off, it will run the vehicle while slow charging the long distance battery. Once that is full again, it switches to running off the long distance battery unless you plan on making another stop in a certain amount of time. That way, you can take the largest fast charge possible if you need to pay the higher price to reach your destination or you can switch batteries if you will be able to slow charge later.

That would be OK if a car had both working together.