No. To your entire manifesto. Your path leads to us drowning in American propaganda, and right now we have an excellent example to the south of us showing the end game.

- An English Canadian

It doesn't NEED to know any of these things. My browser knows the window (not screen) size and if your CSS is well-formed, it'll manage or maybe your page looks shit if you build it shit. It needs to know my OS only if I want a download link, not on every page I ever visit. It doesn't need graphics capabilities unless it wants to bypass the browser rendering engine, in which case it should ask for permission or fuck off.

The thing is that we give up too easily and the major browser manufacturers (one of which is an ad company themselves) are complicit.

I want "fuck the ad industry" mode, where the browser generates random but plausible values for every non-essential information a website requests. Different ones every 5 minutes.

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?

I just can't believe that It was the guys with their finger on GPU allocations, not just the expendable PC OEM they were trying to throw under the bus, the whole time. Whoever could have guessed?

She quit after Lavabit e-mail was shut down in 2013, on the grounds that without a private, anonymous e-mail service, it wouldn't be possible to keep doing Groklaw. Can you link to the "live" interview she did, or where a journalist claimed to have confirmed her identity, or a cite a source where she said that was part of the reason for quitting? Because I remember following the whole thing, and the identity of the PJ persona was cloudy to the end.

The interviews linked are all "responds to prepared questions via e-mail" type affairs. That could easily have been fielded by a team behind the name. I mean, it's possible PJ was just a very privacy-conscious person. But there's still nothing linking the PJ name or alias to an individual.

Does anyone actually have any evidence PJ was a real person and not just a persona created by IBM's PR department? PJ appeared mysteriously, exclusively posting stuff supportive of IBM's position in this case. They never turned their attention to any other litigation. It's awfully suspicious. You'd think a real person who knew that much about the relevant law would have opinions on other cases as well, and you'd expect them to market themselves using the fame/goodwill generated with Groklaw. You'd also think they'd have done at least one interview, or you could find at least one person who's met them. I'm not saying anything posted on Groklaw wasn't true, just that it always seemed like a very successful IBM PR exercise to me.

This is essentially a high-stakes gamble. The payout is potentially millions, so they just try whatever. And I bet if it all turns against them and they're forced to pay legal costs etc. they'll just file for bancruptsy.

Perfect illustration of the thinking problem here. You don't even get WHAT the problem is.

Why is a driver able to fuck up a system? The OS should be the watchdog that says "WTF are you doing there?", not the obedient slave executing whatever.

A great illustration is W^X - first found not in Windows, but in OpenBSD. Because Windows happily goes "whatever you say, master", while the guys at OpenBSD said "no actual use case of non-broken, non-malicious software should ever behave like that, so we'll block it".

If you are responsible for a sensitive location, and a five-year old kid from the neighbourhood one day just wanders in and take a look around out of curiosity, pressing a few buttons to see what happens - you would definitely not keep your job by claiming that the little kid is actually the problem here.

This seems to be propaganda : There's absolutely no independent source, this seems to originate from some gossip by an official in UK's government, sourcing it to the NCSC (a branch of GCHQ), who in turn declined to comment.
The Telegraph heavily uses "it is understood that..." which hints that they were giving very vague information that they're in no way able to confirm.
Also, about Slashdot's summary: there's no more details from the BBC, they're basically pointing to The Telegraph's article.

Wikipedia says that SimCity 4 was release in January 2003.

And you clowns don't think that your OS is a fragile pile of crap if it's that easy to fuck up?

Seriously? Do you even know what the job of an OS _is_ ?

It's not that bad yet, but I think it is a lot closer than the average American believes it is. All the mechanisms are in place, they just haven't been fully employed yet because they're being pushed a little at a time so there's no big incitement to revolution.

It's too late for that, 'law enforcement' has unfettered access to Americans within the US. It doesn't matter what OS you use when they can just march in and disappear you.

Tech bros are difficult to classify. I think they might be the new version of the 80s finance bros; people who have control of an industry where money seems easy to make, influence and power come with the job, but who don't really have the expertise that should be required for the job... except mix that a bit with a toxic engineer personality instead of a toxic jock personality.