Hah this is one of those “Robot, solve world suffering” type solutions. “Affirmative. There can be no suffering if there is no life. Proceeding to eradicate all life.”

Can’t have illegal immigrants if you don’t have any people.

To our small group over in the corner, sure. Not to the vast majority of people yet, unfortunately.

It’s an inevitability that the Republican party will want to control internet discourse very soon for this same reason. Convenient that so many platforms suddenly want to deanonymize you “to protect the kids”.

Obvious fascism is obvious.

Bold strategy, let’s see how it works out for him…

And testing which generals won’t lie under oath.

The CEOs you’re talking about are the CEOs in the analogy.

In b4 head of the CBO is fired.

Kennedy described the research as “a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry,” and said the scientists who authored it had “meticulously designed it not to find harm”

Then show it. Analyze the data, submit your findings, have them peer reviewed, and if your claim holds any water it will get published. You know, science.

But unilaterally stating what is true and false is what a dictator does.

I haven’t been keeping up super close with this, but from the posts by Linus I have seen, I got the sense that he doesn’t really care about bcachefs stability as much as the fact that Kent’s changes keep touching common code at a time when they’re hardening. If they were isolated to bcachefs I don’t think Linus would care at all. And Linus keeps telling him not to try that, and Kent acts like he’s being singled out and persecuted. That’s my current understanding.

The analogy I use is, it’s like a magician pulled a coin from behind a CEO’s ear, and their response was “that’s incredible! Free money! Let’s go into business together!”

Literally no one ever claimed it had reasoning capabilities. It is a trick to produce a string of characters that your brain can make sense of. That’s all.

But their point is that kids literally use the word “ohio” in speech when they need a word that means “cringeworthy, awkward, weird, bad”. Unlike the other states.

Brilliant! What a stable, genius solution to homelessness! Why hadn’t anyone thought of it before?!

Thank you, that’s super helpful info.

If you’re not worried about evil maid attacks and just want secure boot…

It is sad to me that that is my situation actually lol. Or rather, a random windows app just wants secure boot to work and is otherwise not worried about evil maid attacks.

That’s true, but you see why you can use that argument to take every single post from any other political community, slap “YSK” in front of it, and post it here, right? That’s not really the point of YSK. At least not why I’m here.

What about people who have a habit of hitting dogs?

Cool, good to hear!

A few questions:

• is this with grub?
• if so, and I make edits to grub, do I need to trigger a re-sign manually?
• have you ever had any issues with the pacman hook?

I think the part that has me most spooked is the “Replacing the platform keys with your own can end up bricking hardware on some machines” warning.

Yeah, so that’s possible because Canonical has enough sway to get their key to play nice with manufacturers’ firmware. If you are on almost any other distro (arch included) or if you build your own kernel, it’s a headache just to get it to work at all even without dual boot. It also just might not even be possible due to a bad implementation on your motherboard (results ranging from dual boot windows refusing to boot, to a bricked motherboard).

Here’s the process for enabling secure boot for arch users. Make sure to peruse the section on dual booting.

If you’re wondering why it’s so complicated, it’s because of what secure boot is: you want to be sure you’re booting into binary that’s signed by a set of special keys. But Linux is not one binary that can be signed by Linus Torvalds, it’s a bundle of source code that is built by end-users. So if you decide to make any changes to the kernel you have on ububtu, you won’t be able to convince Canonical to sign your build, and you will need to jump through all the hoops on that arch wiki.

There are many reasons for the headache, but primarily I’d say it’s because UEFI is closed source, and msft designed Secure Boot for it, and then manufacturers didn’t care about supporting it any more than the bare minimum. And all of that together results in an ecosystem of devices that favor MSFT. That’s why Linux users don’t like secure boot.

So the second option? What distro?

Are you saying this as someone who has gotten a self-signed key to work with their BIOS + kernel + bootloader + dual boot with windows, someone who runs a mainstream enough distro that they convinced manufacturers to ship with support for their key, or someone who doesn’t run linux with secure boot at all?

It is clear to me you didn’t click any of my sources and have no interest in this subject. Cheers.