Some of the guitar work reminds me of Ratatat.
You might also like Washed Out.
Songs that make you have flashbacks of things you never experienced.
There are all kinds of bands that do that for me. The first two that come to mind are Explosions in the Sky and The Midnight.
Also there's a recently invented word for that feeling:
Anemoia - n. Nostalgia for a time or a place one has never known.
No point in putting locks on your house, because an attacker can just drive their car through your front door.
The attacks you mention have their own ways of being detected: usually eyeballs. But eyeballs can't help you against something hiding in your bootloader. So Secure Boot was made.
And I don't really follow your dual boot claim. If you don't trust one of the OSes, and you boot it up on your hw, you're already hosed. At that point it can backdoor your bootloader and compromise your other OS. Secure Boot prevents malicious OSes from being booted, it can't help you if you willingly boot a malicious OS.
Totally agree that the first one's gameplay doesn't hold up. The second is a HUGE step up. Night and day difference.
Cool, that's a good source to peruse, thanks.
Yeah, afaik the tegra was only used for embedded, closed source devices though, no? Did they submit any non-proprietary tegra support upstream?
And afaik CUDA has also always been proprietary bins. Maybe you mean they had to submit upstream fixes here and there to get their closed-source stuff working properly?
I think you and I are using two different definitions of the word "powerful", or are at least applying them to subtly different aspects of the discussion.
I don't know if you are familiar with basic finite automata theory, but a Finite State Machine is provably less "powerful" than a Turing Machine. This is the definition of "power" that I'm using, "power" as in "expressiveness". i.e. The fact that you can literally create a terminal as a sub-element within a GUI if you wanted means that a GUI is provably more "powerful" (or more expressive) than a TUI. And thus the best GUI for a tool will always be better than the best TUI for the same tool. (Comparing the worst GUI vs the best TUI is a waste of time).
But you're using the definition of "powerful" as in a "powerful programming language". This is a common use of the term, but is much more fuzzy and harder to quantify. It's no longer synonymous with "expressiveness". Generally a language is "powerful" if you can get "a lot done" with relatively few characters or operations. Ex. Python is often considered more "powerful" than C because you can do in a single line what would take dozens or hundreds of lines in C. Similarly, you're saying that a developer can make a comprehensive TUI using less time and effort than it would take for them to make a GUI that's at least as good (including integration with other tools afforded by pipes and redirects).
And I agree with you. But hopefully you also agree with me that a GUI is objectively more "expressive" than a TUI, and in that sense has a higher ceiling for how useful it can be to a user.
What's an example? I would have thought, back then especially, their driver (and maybe nvapi) was most of the software they shipped.
I see several Amcrest options that look like they have integrated AI object detection. Frigate on the other hand says you should get a "Google Coral Accelerator". Do you know if Frigate (or RTSP, I guess) has a way to leverage the built in detection capabilities of a camera (assuming they are built in, and not being offloaded to the cloud)? Or am I better of looking at the "dumb" Amcrest cameras, and just assuming all processing for all cameras will happen on my Frigate hardware?
That sounds fine, but isn't this also what LXC is for?
What does it mean for something to be an "artistic success"?
I remember in the UK show Utopia from 2013, a government frames one of the characters for a school shooting by perfectly doctoring security footage to erase the actual hired shooter and replace them with a specific kid. And they do it all in a matter of hours. I remember thinking that tech was unrealistic, probably impossible. The best Hollywood VFX experts would need a week or more to make it that believable, and even they would need a ton of reference of both the kid and the lightning. Purely fantastical tech.
And now, here we are...
I'm actually not sure what TPM can guard against, but I think you're right, I think if a malicious OS borked with the bootloader, TPM would catch it and complain before you decrypt the other OS.
Yeah, physical access usually means all bets are off, but you still lock your doors even though a hammer through a window easily circumvents it. Because you don't know what the attacker is willing to do/capable of. If you only ever check for physical devices, you'll miss the attack in software, similarly if you only rely on Secure Boot you'll miss any hardware based attacks. It's there as a tool to plug one attack vector.
Also, my guess is the most common thing this protects against are stupid employees plugging a USB they found in the parking lot into their PC. If they do it while the OS is running, IT can have a policy that blocks it from taking action. But if they leave it there during a reboot, IT is otherwise helpless.