aesh2Xa1

But it's still entirely factual in my own description. When a device checks in during initial setup, the firmware-level boot process can receive policies that block alternative OS installation, and that absolutely is a feature of the firmware.

Anyway, I tried to interpret OP's meaning, and provided more detail on how Apple's firmware is special.

But, eh, I still think it's fair to describe it as a feature of the firmware. The enrollment and prevention of removal have firmware-level components through Apple's Secure Boot and System Integrity Protection. A user can't simply disable MDM because these firmware-level protections prevent tampering with the enrollment.

Case in point, getting Linux installed in the first place would be blocked by firmware-level boot policies, right? I'm not too knowledge about this, and maybe you are more so.

With that done well, perhaps the next step would have been ready-made images. I could see it reducing friction for people if they'd rent a VPS, upload an ISO/IMG, and the resulting system was reliably secure. Then they'd use the Sandstorm interface to install apps with a web GUI.

There is still a roadmap documented here:

https://github.com/sandstorm-io/sandstorm/tree/master/roadma...

If OP just meant remote management through a BMC then that's not common except for server hardware, and it would have features like Redfish to configure the hardware itself. Apple devices don't have this.

You can also buy hardware to act as a remote keyboard/mouse/monitor and power button, and it supports systems whose motherboards have the right headers: https://pikvm.org/

Direct democracy doesn't cure ignorance, but it eliminates the corrupted/coerced middleman. An uninformed public voting directly is still more aligned with public interest than uninformed representatives voting for whoever influenced them most.

So there are three issues we're talking about in this context:

1. Reps are also uninformed.

2. Social media manipulation of the populace (or, generally, propaganda).

3. Concentrated influence on a handful of legislators.

Direct democracy eliminates the third vector.

Furthermore, the stakes and incentives for corruption are vastly different. A lobbyist gains far more from corrupting one senator who decides for millions than from swaying individual voters. The return on investment for corrupting concentrated power is orders of magnitude higher.

Even if propaganda shapes opinion, the resulting decisions still represent the people's will at that moment. Representatives can betray even that will for personal gain, adding another layer of distortion between what people want and what they get.

The system also makes reps uniquely vulnerable to targeted lobbying, corruption, regulatory capture, and threats. I find much to be faulty with opaque dealings with a few key individuals.

Direct democracy mitigates these issues. Influence must be exerted through broad, public persuasion. This forces special interests to operate in the open, creating a higher and more transparent barrier to subverting the public will.

For spam, install their sandboxed Google Play, and then install Google's Phone and Speech Recognition & Synthesis apps. For SMS/MMS/RCS spam, you'd use an app supporting blocking (e.g., Google Messages).

I imagine that Hold For Me works if you also install the Google app and whatever other dependencies.

Your argument has now shifted to focus on consumer demand. Yet, even examination of this angle will reveal that China's state policies create the artificially low prices that fuel that consumption.

The issue isn't simply that "the West buys things." It's that China's government actively engineers this hyper-consumption as the Chinese economic policy.

The CSIS (link below) describes this as a system of "nonmarket policies" and "state-driven overproduction." This is accomplished through massive government subsidies that allow Chinese companies to operate at a loss and "dump" cheap goods onto the global market.

The "unsustainable consumption" you describe is, therefore, a direct response to a market deliberately distorted by China for the sake of its economic ambitions.

Furthermore, the CSIS article explicitly states that these dumping policies support China's "pollution-intensive" and "carbon-intensive" manufacturing.

All this is to show that the problem is not reducible to consumer choice, but more so a deliberate strategy by the Chinese state.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-...

I do enjoy the back and forth on these points, though.

I'll address the per-capita figures again, as it's still being lawded, but it is misguided. China's per-capita CO2 emissions are not only multiples higher than India's but have also surpassed those of the European Union. China's high emissions are a direct result of its chosen path of industrialization, pursued for its own economic ambitions.

Regarding historical responsibility -- a point I've already agreed should be part of a complete picture ("historical contributions" above): Crucially, this is happening in an era with known consequences and technological alternatives. The West industrialized over a century without access to modern, cost-effective renewables. China, by contrast, is making a deliberate choice to build out its fossil fuel infrastructure today, fully aware of the climate impact and with cleaner technologies readily available.

This brings us to the original topic of this thread, which is aerosols. China is demonstrating the capability to scrub its emissions, but it is choosing only to clean up the pollutants that have immediate, local health impacts. This reveals a clear policy of prioritizing national benefit over the global necessity of reducing greenhouse gases.

> ultimate use (who buys the end product of China's emissions), and historical contributions. However, to ignore China's absolute , ongoing contribution as the world's largest emitter (by far: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...) is clearly an error.

"Ultimate use" discusses consumption by the West. This fact does not exonerate China, as China directly causes the emissions in order to satisfy its economic ambitions, and profits from its _factual_ role as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. If China did not offer these exports, perhaps someone else would. But right now, it's China.

I also threw in "historical contributions" to throw you a bone. Nonetheless, right now, its China and China's emissions are, even still, increasing.

If you want to pass the buck to the West that's fine, but the reality is that China is producing more emissions than anybody else is, and it does it for the benefit of China at the expense of the planet.

If you want to suppose those these two countries' populations changed lifestyles, I can also entertain that argument. You'd want to consider the economic reasons why one produces the emissions it does right now, and then suppose how that changes. In such a case, who is purchasing China's manufacturing output, and who is now purchasing that of the US?

Ignoring the world's largest and fastest-growing source of emissions simply because its per-capita rate is lower is a distraction from solving the actual problem.

It's an enticing "what if," but does not reflect the reality of the real data we have today. That data says China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Outside that thought experiment it actually is useful, and that's why we have data showing that China leads, by far, in producing emissions. By the way, they lead in methane and nitrous oxide as well -- it isn't just carbon dioxide.

https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

A complete picture of blame absolutely should include per-capita, ultimate use (who buys the end product of China's emissions), and historical contributions. However, to ignore China's absolute , ongoing contribution as the world's largest emitter (by far: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...) is clearly an error.

2023 totals:

China: 11.90 billion tons, trending up

USA: 4.91 billion tons, trending down

The calcium carbonate dust is reflective (the aim of the engineering is to reflect sunlight away from the Earth's atmosphere in the first place). However, it doesn't contribute to acid rain or oceans like the sulfate dioxide does (the aerosol that East Asian scrubbers are removing).

The CO2 (a greenhouse gas) amount isn't increased in this engineering effort. It increases because of burning fossil fuels, though. In the East Asian countries, they are producing/using more energy (via burning fossil fuels), but only removing the reflective aerosol; they're still emitting the CO2.

If cost was no object, we'd probably need to use the calcium carbonate immediately (to prevent the sunlight from entering the atmosphere immediately), we'd scrub existing carbon from the atmosphere (CO2), and we'd convert power plants to non-emissive technologies (and also install scrubbers onto existing ones for as long as they're needed).

As you want to bring the data server right to the TV, and you'll output the video via HDMI, just use any PC. There are plenty of them designed for this (usually they're fanless for reducing noise)... search "home theater PC."

You can install Kodi as the interface/organizer for playing your media files. It handles the all the formats... the TV is just the ouput.

A USB CEC adapter will also allow you to use your TV remote with Kodi.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=udisks

The third-party federation problem is real, but the vulnerability caused by TeleMessage isn't solved by removing federation.

One thing I missed in summary is the concept of general radiant temperature gradient. It's not only about the gradient for conduction, but for radiation (and convection). So you could probably improve my summary by talking about any gradient between different objects in the environment and their EM, which feels unpleasant (but I think it had value in its reduction of the problem, too).

Therefore, 1st: Heating/cooling cycles from your HVAC are fighting these objects because they don't mix at the same speed as other objects (e.g., the air itself), so you end up with gradients across objects; people rate this feels unpleasant.

2nd: Mechanical equipment tends to operate more efficiently under constant load compared to constant start and stop cycles.

With #1 and #2, you can just heat constantly to increase both the uniformity of heating across objects and also the efficiency of the mechanical equipment's energy conversion.

There's a 3rd point, which, really, is just a sneaky way of reframing #1 and #2, and that is that you can also lower your setpoint and still have a subjectively superior comfort perception compared to a cyclic system. It drives home the point to say "constant 68F feels more comfortable than intermittent 72F." But it also invites the complaint about constant versus intermittent energy use, right? So I think just detailing #1 and #2 is better.

There actually is a tmux fork, tmate, that shares over the Internet (not web/HTTP).

Anyway, this looks great. They mention OpenWrt, and that's exactly what I'd use it for.

The feature is part of AOSP.

You can install the sandbox without granting these permissions (and they are not granted by default).

For example, here's an FAA slide from 2013 which explicitly publishes the ambition to place DEI as the core issue ("- How much of a change in jo performance is acceptable to achieve what diversity goals?"):

https://archive.ph/Qgjy5

The evidence in this source does not discuss cronyism, although I believe you that it could have been relevant to your personal experience; it's just false to claim the issue as a whole was unrelated to DEI.

If you don't specify that protocol, though, you have three scenarios:

1. only the local host has the rsync binary 2. both local and remote hosts have the binary, but neither runs them as a daemon 3. both have the binary and the remote runs as the daemon

In #1 you end up using SSH anyway (unless there's also no SSH binary). In #2, a malicious server binary could attack you. In #3, a malicious server binary could attack you.

Also, many of rsync's features rely upon both sides having the binary.

- If everyone suddenly has more money (say $2 more per day)

- And milk is a basic necessity

- The milk seller knows everyone needs milk and now has $2 more to spend

- They can gradually raise the price of milk by close to $2

- Consumers must still buy milk at the higher price

- The intended benefit of the extra $2 is effectively captured by the milk seller

The increases in general purchasing power can be absorbed by suppliers of essential goods. If you have just excess discretionary income in the general case, then non-essential goods can bump in price, too.

The very nature of Cantillon is unequally obtained new money, whereas UBI is universal. Any effect it has would be related to the poorest/neediest spenders now purchasing the sort of goods they do (and, realistically, no increase in spending by the richest). You might see increased consumption in neighborhoods/regions with high concentrations of poor, too.

The better fit for "UBI creates an economic problem" seems to be pricing stickiness. The above commenter focused on controlling general inflation through monetary/fiscal policy (keeping money supply stable, using tax mechanisms), but didn't actually address the concern about producers simply raising prices to absorb the UBI.

The PlayStation 2 launch price in Mar 2000 was $299 (US market).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2

So the Dreamcast was much less expensive than the PlayStation 2. Did you mean to say that rather than saying it was more expensive, or am I missing some detail?