fool me once, shame on you

fool me twice, shame on ME

They're a minority, but there absolutely are people who are tired of democracy because it keeps thwarting their massively unpopular ideas, and they're well-represented in the Trump administration:

https://theinterestingtimes.su...

This looks like a "textbook example" of an authoritarian government abusing law enforcement to silence political criticism.

I don't see how a single person in congress feels they can back this sort of behavior.

Physical ones are definitely rare beasts. Hypervisors make having support for it a lot more generally useful, though. You can still run into weird edge case limitations(certain PCIe devices, under some circumstances, really don't like being detached from the host and popped onto a VM); but the hypervisor will definitely be able to tell guests stories of dynamic reconfiguration that the hardware isn't electrically or mechanically capable of supporting; and being able to add or remove CPUs or RAM without rebooting is nice.

makes it sound like a legal obligation. Is it? I wanna see someone change it to Lake Epstein

If that were a roadblock to creative legal reinterpretation, the US would still be following a 1790s-1960s interpretation of the 2nd amendment today.

"Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."

- Captain Jack Sparrow

Google Maps needs to quit feeding the troll.

I don't see how an event like this doesn't have event security cameras scattered around?

There's a loophole in the 22nd amendment you forgot about that Trump is aware of, the vice-presidential switcheroo:

https://www.politico.com/news/...

BMW Blames Young People

That sounds intentionally deceptive / deflecting. Makes it sound like Young People broke into the R&D labs and rewrote the blueprints, and forced the manufacturers to remove physical buttons, without their consent or ability to say NO.

This isn't about them being responsible for it, it's about car marketing analysts doing research on their customers, and coming to the conclusion that this is what they will buy, while paying little to no attention to what they really want or need. Without thinking about how this will pan out down the road. And now they're seeing all the backlash and pushback and are hunting for someone to blame.

It's like the parents blaming their kid for his cavities, while ignoring their parental responsibilities. "We gave him the candy because he liked it, so the outcome is all his fault!"

Nobody wants to take responsibility for the state of modern car interfaces, because they're all doing it, and the first one or two that accept responsibility are going to take a temporary hit to their image. They all want to change back, but instead they're all standing around looking at each other, "well, c'mon, you do it first!" so they can all quietly make the same change in a year or two and escape the hole they're in. They all want to change back, but nobody wants to be first.

Reminds me a lot of headphone ports on smart phones. Pretty much at once everybody added a headphone port to their phones. It was a bit of a design nightmare, being physically tethered to your phone, but everybody went "all in" on it, and nobody could give it up because they knew their rivals would all jump on the opportunity to lambast their rival for dropping such a mainstream feature. Finally, after bluetooth was starting to mature, Apple finally bit the bullet and removed the jack. And just as expected, multiple big names dragged them through the alley in their marketing, for having gotten rid of a feature that "everybody loved". They kept up the gas-lighting while their designers quietly erased the headphone jack from their next design. Then like a switch, they quit panning Apple's lack of headphone jack as they released their next model that didn't have one either.

I expect the same thing's going to happen with car interfaces. A few manufacturers are going to bite the bullet and make the necessary changes, get slammed in the media for a year or two, and then everybody else is going to quietly make the same change.

It could certainly just be a numbers game; tons of ICE vehicles out there; or whether there's an issue with accumulated cultural assumptions and engineering priorities.

I can at least imagine that there's a difference in mindset between "this is a 12v lead acid starter battery; it'll put out a solid few tens of amps for the starter motor assuming it is working correctly; but its energy density is kind of trash and we mostly prefer not to dump additional systems onto it, especially when that exposes them to the slightly gross output of the alternator" and "This battery has been designed to fully provide for all energy requirements of a vehicle; if you displease it it will probably kill you and then burn vigorously for a day or two. A foundational assumption of all systems that need energy is that they'll be connected back to it in one way or another because there aren't other energy sources here."

Not like electric vehicle designers couldn't/don't make mistakes, and certainly some of their mistakes burn with the really exciting commitment of a large light metal fire; but the engineering culture around an ICE vehicle seems much more likely to produce a string of individually reasonable, collectively dangerous, "c'mon, it's just one little 12v system" requests that get bolted onto a fairly antique battery without too much broader thought; while analogous feature demands in a fully electric vehicle will either be judged high energy enough to potentially get brought into the high voltage wiring(which, barring gross negligence across the design is treated like it can and will kill you) or totaled in to some low voltage system budget that will be handled by a DC-DC converter designed with actual care because going from 600v to 12v isn't something you do as casually as just slapping another 12v requirement in parallel with the other stuff on the 12v battery and calling it good.

that'd be right on brand for him, he loves begging for (and taking) awards he didn't earn

The automative vs. augmentive distinction that AI companies and the ownership class want you to believe in is nonsense meant to keep the working class calm as their job opportunities dwindle away. The only difference between them is a quantity threshold. Augmentive means multiplying the number of jobs available by a number greater than zero but less than one (as fewer people can do the same work), automative means multiplying the number of jobs available by zero. Both mean jobs are lost, the only difference is how many remain.

This sounds like it was written by someone who actually knows what they are doing, so I assume that they know better than I; but I am surprised to hear that it is impersonating a system dll; since (in all comparatively recent windows versions) system components are signed. Absolutely tons of fuckery you can do to them and around them; but if dpapi.dll doesn't have a signature that checks out the mechanisms that try to keep OSes up and running on marginal hardware subject to random power loss will likely eventually object and attempt a repair, even if there isn't any more paranoid EDR tooling in place.

Is the on-disk copy of dpapi.dll untouched and only the in-memory instance tampered with?