Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

grapheneos.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 799 posts

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#341

Post by nickburns »

reactordev wrote: post #337
altairprime wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a proper noun, and this is HN: pedantry is par. “The president of Xyz” capitalizes the X in Xyz(pn) but not the P in president(n). However, the P in President(pn) is capitalized when it’s a Title suffixed to a Name - but that varies per country by what they title their president-equivalent locally and isn’t always translated, while the concept-slash-role label of ‘president’ in English generally does not (an…

President is a title here so Capitalization is correct use. That last one wasn’t. To be pedantic, we all know which one I was referring to.

The word 'president' being a potential title doesn't make it a title nor a proper noun in all contexts.

Your bio contains comma splice, by the way.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#342

Post by nickburns »

danaw wrote: post #319
nickburns wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friendly advice: please don't capitalize random common nouns like the president does. It's a marker of one's affinity toward precision (among other things).

you're being this pedantic about someone capitalizing "President"?

Yes. But mostly just because it's in reference to this particular president who's a dullard and displays it regularly in this particular way.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#343

Post by vvpan »

acgourley wrote: post #11

It's so obvious to me states need to create a soul bound identity system, replace social security numbers with it, and then let everyone else use cryptography on top of that (which is now cheap when you don't care about sybil attacks) to do private stuff.

Yeah, agents are making self sovereign identity so much more relevant. We have all the technology. But identity is the main driver of the monopolies, they won't give it up unless forced to, maybe not even then.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#345

Post by zx8080 »

coppsilgold wrote: post #98

Requiring authorized silicon (and software) isn't even the biggest problem here. They do not use zero knowledge proof systems or blind signatures. So every time you use your device to attest you leave behind something (the attestation packet) that can be used to link the action to your device. They put on a show about how much they care about your privacy by introducing indirection into the process (static device 'ID…

> Requiring authorized silicon (and software) isn't even the biggest problem here. It is indeed the biggest issue. It prevents be from owning and using the hardware I pay for, own, or make myself. It's switching the personal computers as we know it from being open to proprietary and owned by 2 large US corporations.

I don't agree that it's not a problem.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#346

Post by marcus_holmes »

altairprime wrote: post #321
danaw wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're being this pedantic about someone capitalizing "President"?

It’s not a proper noun, and this is HN: pedantry is par. “The president of Xyz” capitalizes the X in Xyz(pn) but not the P in president(n). However, the P in President(pn) is capitalized when it’s a Title suffixed to a Name - but that varies per country by what they title their president-equivalent locally and isn’t always translated, while the concept-slash-role label of ‘president’ in English generally does not (an…

I was just talking about this today:

I have an internal convention to not capitalise LLMs when talking about them as if they were people; so claude is not capitalised, and the internal LLM-based service agent we're building, rex, is not capitalised.

I realise this breaks the capitalisation of proper nouns; claude is a name and therefore a proper noun and therefore should be capitalised. But I like that there's a signal in here that the thing I'm talking about is not a person and so we don't capitalise the name (I realise that cities or companies or other things that we capitalise are also not people).

Digression, but then so was the entire discussion on capitalisation.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#347

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nickburns wrote: post #339
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not a proper noun The President, within this context, identifies a single entity. As such, it is a proper noun. Analogy: there are many continents. But if we're discussing Brexit, the Continent is a proper noun. I don't think it's in correct to not capitalise. But it's certainly gramatically okay, and not in the same bucket as The Nutters who capitalise Random words it Looks like Legalese.

> The President, within this context, identifies a single entity. As such, it is a proper noun Yeah, no. You're just making things up to suit your position like the president does.

> no. You're just making things

...this isn't a counterargument. I can similarly assert you're justing making stuff up, which isn't untrue, either way, since we're talking about language, a wholly made-up enterprise.

What's your contention that the President, within the context of the American presidency, does not refer to a single entity? Is this a preference? Or something you actually believe is incorrect?

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#348

Post by marcus_holmes »

jcgrillo wrote: post #315
dathinab wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why was this decision ever made? because it wasn't made the decision which was made was having a digital ID wallet, that this needs hardware attestation (or something comparable) is somewhat of a direct consequence of existing laws/regulations regarding making IDs forgery safe it also is a phone only application the huge huge majority of phones runs Googled Android/iOS, so you support them if there where a relevant…

If something is actually important, don't put it on a computer. Don't let a computer be in the critical path of anything that actually matters. It's really quite simple. Even before "AI" this technology was not reliable enough for serious, important things--systems that need to be maintainable in adverse conditions (battle damage, etc), systems where failure is not an option (proving your identity, proving your child…

I feel like we need a war or something to show everyone how brittle we've built everything, and how unnecessary it all is.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#349

Post by JumpCrisscross »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #346
altairprime wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a proper noun, and this is HN: pedantry is par. “The president of Xyz” capitalizes the X in Xyz(pn) but not the P in president(n). However, the P in President(pn) is capitalized when it’s a Title suffixed to a Name - but that varies per country by what they title their president-equivalent locally and isn’t always translated, while the concept-slash-role label of ‘president’ in English generally does not (an…

I was just talking about this today: I have an internal convention to not capitalise LLMs when talking about them as if they were people; so claude is not capitalised, and the internal LLM-based service agent we're building, rex, is not capitalised. I realise this breaks the capitalisation of proper nouns; claude is a name and therefore a proper noun and therefore should be capitalised. But I like that there's a sign…

> the thing I'm talking about is not a person

Countries, companies, religions; hell, planets and galaxies–none of these are sapient. Yet we capitalise them.

I'll go out into the deep end for a second with a hypothesis: I think we capitalise because it makes printed text easier to scan. The words you need to spend more time on are capitalised because they aren't ones you can just roll through. This is also why the nutter affect of capitalising random words is so distracting–it drives attention to non-standard words that are, with minimum thought, being used perfectly standardly.

Re: Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler

#350

Post by userbinator »

mmooss wrote: post #293
userbinator wrote: post #161

In 1999, Intel received an absolutely massive amount of opposition when they decided to include a software-readable serial number in their CPUs, so much that they reversed the decision. Then the "security" and Trusted Computing authoritarians continued pushing for TPMs and related tech, and contributed to the rise of mobile walled gardens. Windows 11's TPM requirements were another step towards their goal. The amount…

> In 1999, Intel received an absolutely massive amount of opposition when they decided to include a software-readable serial number in their CPUs, so much that they reversed the decision. > It turns out a significant (but hopefully decreasing) number of the population is easily coerced into anything when "security" is given as a justification. The people who opposed Intel are now telling each other how hopeless and p…

The people who opposed Intel are now telling each other how hopeless and powerless they are.

I don't think those are the same people. I, for one, will continue this fight by telling everyone I know about the fact that Google is going for absolute control of the Internet, and by extension, everyone's lives. They have already become an unelected global government.

Post reply on HN