lmmarsano

If the end user can arbitrarily sign code themselves that is bootable then it kind of defeats the purpose of secure boot.

They can & it doesn't. They can change the platform key to become the platform owner & control the public keys they keep in the code signing databases. Secure Boot gives the platform owner control over authorized code signers of boot processes.

That’s true today, but there’s no guarantee it will be true in the future.

It's in the specification.

The platform key establishes a trust relationship between the platform owner and the platform firmware. The platform owner enrolls the public half of the key (PKpub) into the platform firmware. The platform owner can later use the private half of the key (PKpriv) to change platform ownership or to enroll a Key Exchange Key. See “Enrolling The Platform Key” and “Clearing The Platform Key” for more information.

The platform owner clears the public half of the Platform Key (PKpub) by deleting the Platform Key variable using UEFI Runtime Service SetVariable(). The data buffer submitted to the SetVariable() must be signed with the current PKpriv - see Variable Services for details. The name and GUID of the Platform Key variable are specified in Globally Defined Variables. The platform key may also be cleared using a secure platform-specific method. When the platform key is cleared, the global variable SetupMode must also be updated to 1.

It's a matter of clearing the platform key & enrolling your own platform key. I've done this before.

Typically, computers with Secure Boot let us clear the platform key from the boot menu. (You can choose to purchase only those that do.) Some computer vendors ship Secure Boot in setup mode or let the customer provide public keys to ship preloaded.

Secure Boot has always been for enabling the owner to enforce integrity of the boot process through cryptographic signatures. Linus Torvalds thought the feature makes sense.

Linus: I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source community this is so unpopular that people haven’t really worked on it.

It’s true that secure boot can be used for horribly, horribly bad things but using that as an argument against its existence at all is I think a bit naive and not necessarily right. Because if you do things right then it’s a really good thing. I would like my own machine to have the option to not boot any kernel, or boot loader, that is not signed by this signature.

he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it

see

Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.

Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they're a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they'll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.

Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you're not a qualified physician. It's perfectly fair to point out you're not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.

No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.

This is sensationalist BS and I dearly want this platform to be better than that.

This platform loves sensationalism. Same with other platforms.

Do you have any analysis to substantiate your claims like the articles I linked?

The historical record of congressional party control shows that in the past 4 decades Democrats have rarely had enough control of both chambers to pass legislation without bipartisan support. Democrats (& independents caucusing with them) have had

• no veto-proof supermajority in both chambers since session 94 (1975–7)
• no filibuster-proof supermajority in both chambers since session 111 (2009–11) briefly
• no simple majority in both chambers since session 117 (2021–3).

Even with a majority, Democrats aren't a monolith: they still have factions. Overcoming Senate filibuster requires 3/5 supermajority. Enacting legislation still requires presidential approval or veto override with 2/3 supermajority from both chambers. Veto overrides are rare & typically bipartisan, especially the last one, which was against Trump. Consequently, deliberation & compromise to broadly appeal to their own party & enough of the opposition is a practical necessity.

Moreover, Trump was impeached twice. They simply lacked the 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to convict due to insufficient bipartisan support.

The 1st impeachment split by party almost exactly:

• impeachment passed with a simple majority without Republicans
• conviction votes for 1st & 2nd charges didn't even get a simple majority.

The 2nd impeachment on 2021/1/13 was only days after the 2021/1/6 incitement of insurrection. Despite some Republican support, not enough were willing to defy Trump.

• impeachment passed with some Republican support (all 222 Democrats + 10 Republicans)
• conviction failed with a simple majority approving conviction (all 50 Democrats + 7 Republicans).

Failure to convict on 2021/2/13 imperiled chances of a federal criminal case against Trump's actions during presidency. At that point, congressional Democrats had exhausted the extent of their powers to prosecute or avail Trump to prosecution. The congressional investigation afterward while lengthy posed no real chance of holding Trump legally accountable for inciting insurrection: it could only make findings & refer criminal charges to prosecutors. Any further action would need to be taken by federal prosecutors in the presidential administration.

While the DOJ investigation started late in 2022 November & failed to enter trial hearings (either due to a corrupt judge or appeals over presidential immunity) by the time Trump was reelected, that failure was entirely the Biden administration's and not of the Democratic party, who had promptly impeached Trump & failed to obtain conviction, because the numbers weren't in their favor.

Putting "wrenches in the spokes" goes both ways. Do you know how long congressional Republicans had tried to restrict abortion? They simply couldn't: they had to circumvent US congress through the Supreme Court & state legislatures. Democrats haven't been "enabling, aiding, or abetting" Republican fascism or authoritarianism: roll calls indicate the contrary. It's just Congress operating as unsatisfactory & inefficient as should be expected when half represent crazed-out fascists.

Again, any concrete suggestions for how the "damn Democrats" could "stand up to Trump"?

How do you suggest they do that? They're the minority in both chambers of congress & already overwhelmingly oppose the president's party on legislation. From roll call analysis

• polarization is at the highest in the last several decades

• Democrats have lately voted with higher party unity than Republicans

  In the House and the Senate, the average party conformity score was higher for Democrats than Republicans over the nearly 18,000 total votes taken. Democrats in the House voted with their party 90.4 percent of the time; Republicans in the House, 89.3 percent of the time. In the Senate, the gulf was wider: Democrats lined up 89.8 percent of the time while Republicans did so only 86.6 percent of the time.

  Over the past 20 years, Democrats have, in fact, been more likely to stick together on votes than have Republicans.

• non-cooperation between parties is the highest it's been for at least 6 decades & increasing

  • the frequency of pairwise vote agreements cross-party is at a low & clearly declining
  • pairwise vote agreement networks are clearly splitting by party.

They're supporting protests against the president's actions.

So, you're already telling everyone you don't understand the spoiler effect, basically advocating the opposition to assure their own loss.

Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.

A spoiler campaign in the United States is often one that cannot realistically win but can still determine the outcome by pulling support from a more competitive candidate.

Any other bright ideas?