The primary argument in favor of TPM's is the desire to assert against tampering to the boot system, and as a secondary effect it can be one of the solutions to reduce the need for users to type in passwords.
You can still use crypto without a TPM, including with full disk encryption, and for LUKS specifically you can use multiple passwords and mechanisms to unlock the system. Different solutions will give different benefits and drawbacks. Me and a friend wrote a remote password provider for Debian called Mandos which uses machines on the local network as a way for unattended boots. It does not address the issue of tampering with the bios/boot loader, but for the primary purpose of protecting against someone stealing the server/disks it serves the purpose of allowing us to use encrypted disk without drawbacks of typing in passwords, and the backup server, itself with encrypted disks, handles the risk of needing recovery passwords. At most one needs to have an additional backup key installed for the backup server.
Painting the flag on the hull while at sea seems very similar to the plotline in Lord of War when they repainted the name of the ship in order to avoid detection. It is not a very standard operation at sea.
The Russian shadow fleet is well known for flying a false flag so it makes it a bit ironic when a ship of that suddenly claim to be Russian when it want others to treat it as being Russian.
This duality occurs identically when people discuss legal required child support. "If you didn't want a child, don't have sex" is very commonly initial argument, but then it get changed into "well being of the child" approach, as it leads to the same conclusion. It not a punishment, its a childs's right to support by their biological parents.
Most nations still have social support and government responsibility as last resort, which equally can do the job of supporting children without willing parents, but then people return to the punishment/moral angle that if men don't want to pay for children then they should not have sex.
Look to how quickly people reaches for the morality position and we see how little friction anti-abortion policies has to overcome.
Both can be motivating factors even for the same person. But which dominates the motivation, I'd argue, can be seen by the end policies.
What I expect to see for those that view it as primarily punishment is little outside of child support for kids. Penalizing the "dead beat dad" as it were. I expect those governments to not provide child support, tax breaks for parents, or any sort of welfare/support/minimum standard of living for parents. That is to say, the answer to "how hard would it be to be a single parent" in those government would be "very hard".
For governments that are solely looking out for the welfare of the kid, I expect to see a large amount of support for kids, especially for poor families. I expect some help with childcare, housing, etc to make sure the kids are well cared for.
It definitive seems like a connection between a lack of social support and an emotion reaction to penalizing people for getting pregnant. On the extreme end we have a culture where the man should take responsibility for getting the woman pregnant and where abortion is seen as a way for both to escape responsibility. Support comes from the family rather than society, which also means members of the family is responsible towards the family.
The closer people holds to those values, the easier society accept laws like anti-abortion. Religion do play a supporting role in this by holding onto the values, but is itself not always in the center.
> None of the other new AI platforms seem to be having this problem
The very first AI code generators had this issue that user could make illegal content by making specific requests. A lot of people, me including, saw this as a problem, and there were a few copyright lawsuits arguing this. The courts however did not seem to be very sympathetic to this argument, putting the blame on the user rather than the platform.
Here is hoping that Grok forces regulations to decide on this subject once and for all.
Practically every single device or program that is connected in that ipv4 network will have a built in tunnel into the garden, with nat traversal being standard practice for everything. Your fridge, car, door lock, light fixture, all the applications on the phone, everything can and likely is a whole into the garden where someone can get full access. There are quite a few companies who has lost millions because they assumed that the garden was safe from threats within.
Public opinion in 2001 and 2003 followed the 9/11 terror attack and was very fresh in peoples mind. A more recent war (2015) would be the attack on Yemen by Barack Obama.
I can however not find any good public opinion for that war.
I don't think Americans perceive much of a difference between attacking Al Qaeda++ in Afghanistan versus in Yemen, certainly not enough to see it as "a different war", and it's not clear that perception is incorrect.
Afghanistan had the context of 9/11. All Americans knew about 9/11, and most cared strongly about it.
I doubt most Americans know anything about Yemen or know anything about any US involvement there, nor do they care.
Military strikes in Yemen aren't seen as the same war. Afghanistan and Iraq were boots on the ground, building up military bases, hearing about the occasional death of US personnel, etc. It's also decades apart.
When it comes to Yemen, the average American is probably entirely unaware of it, and the ones that do know about it are definitely going to place it in the Palestine/Israel context (which has huge mindshare circulation here, All things considered - we usually just ignore things outside of US borders and this is ultra politicized here). Maybe without that element, there would be more truth to what you were saying, but it's definitely in the Israel/Hamas war bucket as of now.
I think Americans are broadly aware that the US has been striking AQ, AQ++, and ISIS affiliates across the Middle East as part of the broader GWOT/OIR for years, and the exact jurisdictions in which it happens are essentially implementation details.
As of a few months ago, when the US began striking Yemen for purpose of defending Israel, it ha become loosely affiliated with that conflict, but the period discussed was Obama era.
We've been bombing Yemen on and off since post 9/11, including a rather large attack with UK support just last year (2025). Are you thinking of the Saudi-led intervention that occurred in 2015 in Yemen as part of the Yemeni civil war? Or maybe when we built a base there in 2011 to facilitate more drones?
Why would there be a need for independent international investigation when both Sweden and Denmark had active investigations? It was within Swedish and Danish waters so who else has a legal claim to that investigation?
Countries directly impacted, like most of europe? They don't have a legal claim but when it's so strategic, counties get involved in other's business. Think the US international actions, but for an attach that happen on it's own continent.
The only country with a claim of being directly impacted is Germany and they also has their own investigation. Sweden and Denmark also share military intelligence with the rest of NATO, which include most of Europe.
But you are not answering the question. What need is there for an independent international investigation that has not already been served by the investigations done by Sweden and Denmark?
I disagree. The core of freedom of speech is freedom of thought, conscience and belief, without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Die Gedanken sind frei is older and more fundamental than the right to criticize the government.
Threats, assault, and murder is different since they represent real and substantial harm that is universal recognized. Thoughts are permitted, but the acts are not, which include threats. The line between thoughts and threats might be fuzzy, but the distinction is not.
The legal question around Kiwi Farms has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the legal theory of assisting, and platform liability.
If you want society to be more vulnerable to military action, then the biggest innovation is health care. Improved health care is what allowed nations to create and maintain larger military forces. Through out history, disease and malnourished caused more death by a large margin than actually violence in combat, and many war campaign stopped suddenly because one or both sides became unable to continue.
I think they mean communicable diseases, not combat injuries. For example, around 2/3rds of the military deaths in the American civil war were from disease, not combat. I don’t think much of the medical advances that prevent that came from combat medicine.
Right, those are relatively minor improvements compared to soldiers no longer dying en masse from typhoid, smallpox, measles, etc. Good improvements to be sure, but not quite as significant.
You can still use crypto without a TPM, including with full disk encryption, and for LUKS specifically you can use multiple passwords and mechanisms to unlock the system. Different solutions will give different benefits and drawbacks. Me and a friend wrote a remote password provider for Debian called Mandos which uses machines on the local network as a way for unattended boots. It does not address the issue of tampering with the bios/boot loader, but for the primary purpose of protecting against someone stealing the server/disks it serves the purpose of allowing us to use encrypted disk without drawbacks of typing in passwords, and the backup server, itself with encrypted disks, handles the risk of needing recovery passwords. At most one needs to have an additional backup key installed for the backup server.
reply