Whereas if there isn't, the obvious alternative is that the other banks have lawyers who don't erroneously advise their client that they're required to do something they're not.

I mean, we can take them back. Everybody refuse to use them and cause as much trouble as possible for anyone who tries to make you. Use TOTP or similar instead.

> If the government wants to force tracking/verification on certain websites, it won't simply be something they walk away from if Passkeys don't exist.

The way you fight things like this is by making it so the current technology is incapable of doing it and then if they try to legislate it, you have more time to roll back the policy before the technology to support it can be developed and imposed on everyone.

Implementing support for the dystopian technology before the law even requires it is the opposite of that.

Nah, it's fair to regard anything that supports remote attestation as toxic and aggressively thrust it into the biohazard waste incinerator. Any whiff of remote attestation, even being adjacent to it, and an angry mob should appear to burn your entire castle to the ground. Deters companies from wanting to be associated with it.

Also impedes the motte and bailey where they claim you can opt out of it until it's entrenched enough that you can't.

> no-one is forcing you to use said service in that case.

Until something with a monopoly or both halves of a duopoly or a strong network effect starts demanding it.

Even if the something is no more than engaging less fatuous attorneys.

You expect $50 phones to have LiDAR hardware?

> LiDAR emits a pulse, then times how long it takes to get a pulse back, so your exploit got a lot more technically complicated since of course these pulses travel at the speed of light.

That's assuming you're trying to detect the pulse rather than sending back photons with particular timing from when you expect it to come. Notice that you can also try more than once and only publish the image where you got the timing right.

You also have the advantage because you can have something which is directly in front of the sensor but is sending back photons later than that because you're pretending to be something which is further away.

> The LiDAR scanner is part of an integrated circuit (IC) that encrypt the data from the LiDAR scanner. To get at the unencrypted data, you would have to uncap the IC and use a scanning electron microscope or such.

With the right equipment you can affect electrical signals within an IC without disassembling it.

Or you can disassemble it. It doesn't have to be easy when only one person has to do it.

> The web server behind the site would be connected to a compromized iPhone Pro. As soon as Apple becomes aware of the web site, they will disable the iPhone. Specifically, they will be able to determine ID number (term?) of the iPhone from the attestation data, and I'm pretty sure they already have the ability to disable an iPhone by ID number.

So they set up an apparatus where they can put any such a phone, buy them in bulk and resell them immediately after use for the same price they paid. Then most are never detected and even if a few of them are, Apple is only disabling the phone of the innocent third party buyer, likely outside of the return window, and thereby negatively impacting the resale value of their own brand.

Also, your premise was that this would be in every phone and then they're not buying late model iPhones, they're getting e-waste phones with dead batteries or cracked screens by the pallet for ~free to use once on their way to the scrapper.

> The last time a public jailbreak was released for modern iPhone hardware running the actively signed, latest iOS version was in May 2020, which is over six years ago. It is possible that someone will publish a jailbreak in the future, but the lifespan of that jailbreak will probably be only a few days.

You're assuming they publish their methods for Apple to patch instead of setting up the service to sign images without documenting exactly how they do it.

And also that every phone OEM cares to that extent, which they obviously don't.

The iPhone Pro starts at $1199.

Moreover, LiDAR is essentially a laser that emits at a particular wavelength and a camera that detects that wavelength, so it could be fooled by pointing it at a screen that emits at the same wavelength, which in turn could be an ordinary screen with something in front of it that converts light at a wavelength it emits to the one the LiDAR sensor is expecting.

And that's if you insist on using light. The LiDAR sensor itself is an analog piece of hardware that converts the light into an electrical signal, so if you substitute its electrical output as the input to the signing hardware then it signs whatever you want and never knows the difference.

The hardest part about this is probably creating a credible depth map of a generated 2D image, which is the part that doesn't require signatures or attestation.

> The technology need not be 100% tamper-proof to affect society: there is a huge difference in persuasiveness between the claim that anyone could have created a particular video by submitting to an AI some starting videos and images and a few prompts and the claim that anyone with years of technical training and experience could have bought 500 iPhones and used very expensive equipment to create 499 ruined iPhones and one iPhone that Apple's engineers have not detected yet that can be used to create falsely attested recordings.

Until one of the people with the capacity to do it sets up a website where anyone can submit an image and have it signed.

Moreover, isn't "most people can't do this but some people still can" actually worse? It's a system for providing undue credibility to the forgeries from the people who can do it.

Without even making most legitimate images more credible, since most phone cameras don't have fancy LiDAR hardware.

What possesses companies to do things like this? A customer running a current version of LineageOS is going to have better security than running the out of date Android version that came with the phone. An attacker who wants root on something that will run the bank app doesn't have to use a different OS, they can just use any of this month's CVEs to root the "approved" version. Even requiring the latest patches -- which would exclude entirely too many actual customers' phones -- wouldn't stop attackers from controlling their own devices, because they could root the device before installing the patch and then install the patch for the vulnerability they used to get root on the device where they already have it.

And attackers who are going to modify the system to carry out an attack inherently have some kind of software development capacity, so measures like this have no effect on them and all they actually do is interfere with the ability of honest normies to replace their out of date OS with a version that is less likely to be compromised by attackers.

Are they just taking kickbacks from Google or something?

E=mc^2. The proportion of the original mass converted to energy in fusion is higher than it is for fission.

The trouble with fusion is that you need really high temperatures and pressures to sustain it. You can easily sustain a fission reaction at a few hundred degrees C, or even lower than that if you wanted to (but the general goal is to boil water to run a steam turbine so >100°C is what you want).

Fusion requires millions of degrees, which would vaporize most things you might want to use as a container, so instead they use strong magnetic fields and then you spend a lot of energy maintaining the magnetic field. A bomb doesn't care about that because sustained operation isn't required and vaporizing everything in the vicinity is kind of the idea.

Moreover, efficiency isn't really the issue. The efficiency of fission is already absurd. Fission of a given mass of uranium generates the same amount of energy as burning 2.7 million times that amount coal -- by mass, it's even more by volume.

The main advantages of fusion are that hydrogen is a lot more common than uranium (though uranium is still pretty available) and that the byproduct of fusion is helium (a non-radioactive noble gas with general usefulness), whereas some of the fission byproducts are variously radioactive or have limited known commercial applications.

The premise being that if property values change city-wide, property taxes don't, because property tax revenue only changes if the city's population does -- and if population increases then it's usually associated with new construction, so as long as the newly constructed units have a similar value per-bedroom to the existing ones, the amount you pay in property taxes doesn't change then either.

Not to the machine it wouldn't. The system board has the CPU on it. The CPU has a heatsink. The heatsink is thicker than the extra PCB would be, hence the laptop already has to be that thick anyway.

Moreover, a Macbook is >100mm thick. SOCAMM is 2.4mm thick. It's implausible that they couldn't fit it within the existing exterior dimensions to begin with, but it's even more implausible that anybody actually cares about 2.4mm -- the difference in thickness between different Macbook models of the same generation is an order of magnitude larger than that but even the thicker ones have soldered memory.

The people who were in college in the 1980s aren't millennials. If you were 22 in 1983 then you were born in 1961. That's not even Gen X, that's a boomer.

And Halloween in particular isn't really the point anyway. The decade associated with topless hippies and free love was before the 1980s. The Romans would dispute the notion that this sort of thing is a recent development.

> Traditional ways of meeting a spouse don’t involve slutty costumes at once-a-year parties (Halloween is not a spouse-selection fertility festival), but family, church, and neighborhood connections that build over spans of time in 3d.

The issue being that the neighbors are no longer renting a hall to have local discussion meetings because that sort of thing now happens on Facebook. And then if Facebook is a place where non-platonic sentiment gets you a ban, what happens?

The thing about imposing content restrictions via corporate intermediaries is that they're not that selective. If you're not banning cleavage and innuendo from the mass market services then they become the funnel to OnlyFans and escort services, but if you are then the result is a de facto ban on real people flirting with each other because they're afraid of having their account locked.

Consider what "chilling effects" implies in the context of sexual expressiveness.

The primary advantage of soldering compared to DIMMs is that the traces can be slightly shorter without routing them through an edge connector, but if you need that then you can use CAMM.

They solder the memory because then you can't upgrade it. Strong evidence for this is that they do the same thing with the SSD, for which there is no even plausible other justification.

This seems like the sort of thing where you shoot yourself in the foot and then don't like that your foot hurts. Who exactly is delaying the grid connection?

> But when a new AI data center is proposed in your area you don't necessarily know if yours will be one of the ~15% that is highly polluting.

So pass a law against the high polluting ones in particular and then it won't be.

> Worse, many of these project are being rushed through approval with barely any time for the public to review and comment on the plans.

This presumes there should be "plans" being submitted to begin with. There should be laws that say what kind of generators you can and can't operate etc. and anyone should be able to do anything which is in compliance with the rules.

Requiring pre-approval is the hallmark of a shakedown and the fact that it's so common is one of the reasons everything has become so expensive.

> First, because there are way more AI data center projects currently underway than there are existing data centers. The other things that use gas turbines are using them at about the same rate as they have been for many years.

I don't really buy the argument that people who have been doing something wrong for a long time should get a special exception from needing to do the right thing going forward.

> Second, those other uses are usually either short term emergency use or they are comply with with pollution controls. For 99% of people an AI data center is the only thing that might operate a bunch of gas turbines with poor pollution control near a residential neighborhood 24/7 for a long time.

You may be underestimating the badness of essentially all of the coal-fired power plants.

And "near a residential neighborhood" isn't a real qualifier because that's everywhere. If you built a power plant in the Alaskan wilderness then it would be "near a residential neighborhood" because the people who work there would have to live somewhere in the general vicinity of it. Threre are states in New England that can't hit their air pollution goals because they're downwind of coal-fired power plants in West Virginia.

It's pretty obvious that image generation models are getting better at e.g. producing hands with the expected number of fingers.

> Your original post seems to be arguing a "wag-the-dog situation", when this is more of a "arm the insurgents" situation imo.

Then why are the complaints about nonsense things like water usage in regions with no meaningful water scarcity?

> And it's not just burning fossil fuels, they also require tons of construction

They're paying to train new people in the trades to do construction, which is good because then we'll have them even after the boom is over and might finally be able to do something about the housing shortage.

> And again, some people just hate AI. Full Stop. There is nothing good about it to those people.

Which is fine, but then they should be trying to get companies to stop using AI-generated content rather than trumping up nonsense about data centers being "loud" and so on.

Notice that the latter doesn't actually do any good because you can't get rid of the AI slop by having them build the data center in a different place, and it doesn't help you to offer them motivated reasoning full of bad arguments that are easier to knock down.

The issue is that the current Apple way of designing hardware doesn't really work for servers. An individual 1U server can easily cost $50,000 or more. Soldering everything together so that if a single memory chip goes bad you have to replace the entire machine instead of that one stick is going to make customers unhappy. Likewise, they expect to be able to add storage or network ports, and expect the software to have enough openness that the new systems will work with their existing enterprise SAN or what have you.

Obviously Apple could make open server hardware, but then people might start wondering why they can't make open laptop hardware.

This one seems to have an obvious problem.

It's October, consider the traditional Halloween party for 20-somethings. Slutty costumes, college students making out on the couch, and those are the tame ones.

All of that stuff has been effectively banned from workplaces and official school functions and the like for a while now. Meanwhile people increasingly do their social interaction via social media. So what happens if you ban revealing images and sexual dialog from there too? Where are you leaving for people to actually do those things, if you want them to connect with each other?

The issue is that Congress is making the details of the second type of policy complicated on purpose to conceal the fact that they're not really doing the first one, while making it seem like they are to mollify the people who want something like that.