tgma

I am a fan of OLEDs and have enjoyed secondary PC laptops with OLED, however, to be clear:

- Most OLED PCs were not anywhere as bright as the old MBP miniLED display.

- Almost all OLED PCs have terrible blue shift when viewed at an angle.

- Apple miniLED XDR displays are no slouches either. They are not quite OLED, but they implemented the dimming zones very well with uniform backlighting and deep blacks.

I have not seen Apple's on MBP, but I bet it meets or exceeds iPad Pro Tandem OLED which does not have the two problems above.

So no, it is not the same as the decade old PC OLED. And I have ignored all the potential durability issues.

I would not assume it is software-locked. Display controller on 120Hz ProMotion displays is more expensive. Also, the panel itself is likely cheaper LTPS vs. LTPO.

"Can you believe it... Reversi" reminded me of the Steve Ballmer ad for Windows 1.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgJS2tQPGKQ

Perhaps what allows Apple is to be better at certain things like that or security for average consumer is indeed at odds with some aspirations? At least in practice, not utopian dreams, that seems to be the case.

So you vote with your wallet for accessibility despite freedom and the rest of hacker news do the opposite and it all works itself out.

> Is it not obvious that not every global .com website owner wants to use only have the choice of US-run CAs

The major browsers are all US made though, so in the end there is an implicit trust on US vendors, even deeper than the trust on CA.

> It's also not at all a given that website owners would prefer the national CAs

The suggestion is to have a few major ones (LetsEncrypt) be able to sign everything like today but restrict the others. You can still choose to use the US one, just like you basically use CT logs from the US vendor today.

--

In practice, DNSSEC/DANE based solution may be the practical path forward along this line.

Personally? I'd agree with you. FWIW, you already have to trust your browser vendor, so you might as well trust Mozilla and Google and Apple and MSFT who can spin up one each, or collectively two or three CAs in US, UK, Switzerland, Ireland or sth like that.

That said, starting from the status quo, not sure that's the path of least resistance to get there.

Legacy CA/Browser Forum politics.

Also the industry has changed a lot since Let's Encrypt. You could have argued against monopolizing the CA issuance to just a few countries/entities as sovereignty issue, and CAs were indeed exhibiting extreme rent-seeking behavior before Let's Encrypt. With a guaranteed free and accessible alternative in the mix, the weight of the arguments against would change.

There is no valid reason my computer should come preloaded with 100+ trusted certificates from many jurisdictions that all can sign certs for all domains.

Only a few major CAs in jurisdictions that admit heavy scrutiny and legal liability should operate. Country-specific CAs, if any, should only be scoped to signing certificates for their respective ccTLDs.

Everything is relative, but fair enough.

I bet it would be the NVIDIA, at least initially, not for the encryption capability per se, but for simple fact that adapting to TPU at high performance is non-trivial.

I don't believe threat of litigation alone explains the extent of it.

The way an American company, esp a reputable one like Google, conducts itself internally is different. There will be much more internal backlash to do the wrong thing way before litigation.

America is a high-trust society.

Would be interesting to render a real desktop environment directly on top of that from the iPad. You'd get an OpenDarwin-like thing with the power of M4.

> ...sharing (and hence, phishing)

Sharing and phishing are on two different axes. You can have shareable credentials that are phishing-resistant when used.

You can have hardware-backed SSH keys that are not cloneable. You would need the browser to prevent phishing while still using SSH agent as its underlying signature mechanism (implied by my "in a consumer package").

> Phishing is a major problem, but it happens less than you think.

Bullshit. Literally number one attack vector.

> Password managers are also checking the domain before supplying a saved password.

Password managers are not anywhere as ubiquitously used as you'd think. Even if you rely on password managers, you encounter scenarios where the website relies on a different domain that's not paired appropriately. Some "legitimate" mofos like Plaid used to ask password for third party website. Consumers don't see a password manager failure to fill out a password as a security issue. They see it as a routine password manager failure.

Your "SSH cert" option, in a consumer package, is effectively the passkey.

Hard disagree. Phishing is a major problem. Passwords+OTP are phishable[1]--passkeys are not (the signature is bound to the domain and cannot be forwarded). That alone makes passkeys worthwhile for the vast vast majority of consumers. This is not a theoretical threat model. You simply cannot realistically expect even a savvy consumer to be able to save themselves from phishing all the time. One mistake and they are fucked.

If you write a long article about the merit of passkeys and there is no occurrence of the string "phish" in your article, I am afraid I cannot take your rant seriously.

Again, this stuff is not merely theoretical. YubiKeys have been a thing at Google and other major tech companies for almost two decades now and the effects are well-studied.

[1]: I have found for some weird reason, this is often overlooked and misunderstood in the industry. People even know about SIM swaps and stuff like that, but don't realize OTP is not phishing-proof.

Is that so? That's just one side of the push and pull.

Feed a bunch of SaaS screenshots to LLM and you get a GTK+ app for yourself.

It looks like the generic edge server 403ing (presumably country-gated), not the application generating that error message deliberately.

Another thing that can help contextualize this phenomenon is mix tapes, which are fair use in the US.

Modifying/modding/remixing software was simply not as feasible as music, but LLMs made it possible.

> popular political movement to address this issue in copyright law.

Or perhaps the people should admit that copyright, an artificial construct which is not rooted in natural property, was inherently broken and is not (or at least no longer is) a net benefit to the society and simply adapt around it.

Isn't MSVC EDG frontend?

I did not call it a conspiracy theory; not here at least. Have you even read what Ted Kaczynski has written? Perhaps you'd like some of it if you do. I bet he's also smarter than your average Anthropic employee.

Your comment is load-bearing and I will keep that in mind.

Sure, I don't doubt your ability to do so yourself. I just question your ability to trust some random unknown figure with your data if you have enough scale. That's quite different, actually.

> If I had to choose between buying from him, or some other random dude, I'll hear out the random dude first.

If you have such luxuries, I bet you don't have enough scale to be really profitable for him.

I removed it on Fold 5-7 and it felt a lot better. It won't kill the product like it did back in Fold 1 days. The screen is a lot more sensitive to micro scratches than your run if the mill gorilla glass though.

> In the real world the quality of these esoteric problems is typically gauged by the difficulty of solving them.

I don't believe that's strictly true. Way oversimplified projection on one axis.

The whole abstract is full of falsehoods and unsubstantiated assumptions, dare I say unjustified biases.

> it is now the identification of a promising problem which is the scarce and precious resource

This is by no means new. Perhaps it is even more extreme now. Literally my first 1:1 with my PhD adviser back then, he told me that the most important thing about a researcher is the quality of the problems he picks.