Comment Interesting (Score 1) 18
I didn't see a 5.6 option on the Windows client last night.
Haa anyone else observed 5.6 in the wild?
I didn't see a 5.6 option on the Windows client last night.
Haa anyone else observed 5.6 in the wild?
Trump doesn't need to have power, he only needs to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Companies are risk-averse, which is why Anthropic pulled their AI model for a while.
You can get Veracrypt to work with the Mac, via FUSE, but I don't know how safe/robust that is. It's probably more secure than anything Apple has. It's certainly more secure than anything Microspot has.
But, yeah, it's getting extremely irritating that useful stuff is being taken out of commercial OS' and junk put in.
There's no known client, but there is a very good unknown client:
(For those familiar with Kenny Everett...)
https://dev.to/jfscoertzen/cha...
https://snapcraft.io/chatgpt-d...
Whether it has all the official features, I don't know. But that's your best bet.
Insane Clown Posse, is that you?
Once they realized you'd pay the hire price, if the fees are gone, the businesses are just going to go 'yummy more money for me'.
This is dumb shit. Many stores around me explicitly charge you the difference if you pay by credit card to cover the service fee.
I have never had my debit card compromised. Ever. The fact that it's a direct line is what makes it not usable to buy things online, etc (generally). But it's very nice to use in person - I like that when I spend money, I'm actually spending it and not creating debt. (Don't get me wrong, I always pay off my credit card bills every month, which are not trivial sums
Credit cards, on the other hand - we all pay for the insurance. It's not really the banks problem, its a problem that you have protection for because you pay for it.
"Just give me 1% in cash"
That's still money that comes from somewhere. Like
"An opt-out setting that quietly ships settings data off-device is exactly the sort of thing that adds to administrators' workloads rather than lightening them."
Fine, but there's *tons* of them. This is a drip in an ocean. The opposite, settings you need to turn on are also fucking huge depending on the corperate environment it's used in. I mean, fiddling over one setting on a product with a user base as huge and diverse as Windows is nitpicking imo.
Places that have to deal with this are setup to be proactive about the larger problem set.
yeah, damnit, we can't charge you X so we can give X - some amount back to you and call it a reward
fucking reward schemes suck
The DoD is known for viruses transporting payloads across airgaps onto Internet-connected machines. One thing it isn't is "so secure".
But, to the extent that it IS secure, it uses pretty much what I outlined. They use Class 3 certs for all users and all machines, and have done since about 2001. The US Navy got to trial run thei system to shake down the defects in the design, before they rolled it out to everyone. Beyond that, they use segregated networks (in principle, physical separation rather than logical separation, but who knows?) and encrypted communications.
What I've done above is take what the US DoD uses today, threw in what the US DoD recommended but never actually implemented in the 70s to fill in some of the gaps, and also included what the US DoD implemented and actually used in the way of Trusted OS deisgns in the 70s and 80s. The NSA and IRS likely use some variants on the same techniques.
So, what I've got above is pretty much why the DoD is as secure as it is.
What I've done is augmented it to handle the fact that you need to verify the hardware and not just the endpoint, and that you need to verify the physical host independently of the logical host. But that's pretty much it.
Still trying to extort money from IBM after all this time. Nothing like a business model made up entirely of rent seeking.
https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/07/04/confidential-computings-core-trust-mechanism-is-broken-the-fix-may-not-exist/5266056
The claim in The Register is that confidential computing might not be a fixable problem. I am not going to claim I have "the solution", or that the solution I have come up with meets either the requirement of being necessary or sufficient, but I would argue that it adequately challenges the assumption that the problem cannot be solved at all.
https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/07/04/confidential-computings-core-trust-mechanism-is-broken-the-fix-may-not-exist/5266056
The claim in The Register is that confidential computing might not be a fixable problem. I am not going to claim I have "the solution", or that the solution I have come up with meets either the requirement of being necessary or sufficient, but I would argue that it adequately challenges the assumption that the problem cannot be solved at all.
That is true, but the archaeology shows that this won't work for all island-hopping or all river navigation.
For example, we have clear evidence of hominins not just living on islands across the Mediterranean when no ice was present (it was free-standing water) but commuting to and from shore. We also have evidence of technologies travelling upstream along river-based communities at speeds that cannot be accounted for by simply walking.
So we need a model in which they could actively navigate against the water flow AND across significant distances of open water.
Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.