You don't need physical access to install a bootkit, just root access, and full disk encryption would only protect against bootkit infection via an evil maid attack. The bootkits being discussed here get install by just running on top of the full OS with root privileges.

But on the other hand, bootkits are an extremely rare form of malware, likely the rarest type, and I think creating Secure Boot in response to it was a case of whipping a curious little problem into a crisis and then never letting a crisis go to waste.

The reason they can't (even if they have the resources) is that the market rewards brutal worker exploitation, or at least fails to punish it in any way while allowing businesses to reap the benefits. Labor laws that enforce decent working conditions would be a good start towards a solution, and those start falling into place after similar union-negotiated working conditions become common enough that they're a de-facto market standard. Unions make the progress and government just locks it down.

Because they don't have the money to start a business lying around (a $1k emergency expense would be a big ask for the average American, average startup cost is around $20k), they likely have health coverage tied to their employment, and they probably don't like the odds of competing in a market riddled with oligopolies that benefit from massive economies of scale and labor arrangements that can treat workers as consumables and work them to their limits.

HTH

Unfortunately we have an economic system where people who can't get others to pay for their toil become destitute.

Yes, and IIRC in the '90s/early 2000s they recommended a lower grade of AES for civilian vs. military use. And more recently, there was the TrustCor debacle.

If the NSA can get the non-hybrid PQ algorithm to be the standard for future versions of TLS that would be the NSA's biggest ever win in cryptography standards sabotage. The level of danger they're willing to heap on all non-military communications again raises the question of whether they think their foreign adversaries are massively inept compared to themselves, or if they just think that creating this widespread danger is worth making their jobs easier.

Unfortunately you generally can't make electricity cheaper for consumers with cheaper grid power due to how the idiotic regulatory-captured electricity market works (in the UK most notably, electricity prices can't fall until natural gas is eliminated from the grid completely), but until that's fixed, you can shift the money from your local job-intensive renewable producer to authoritarian petrostates with fossil fuels.

So with Queensland having local coal production and politicians on the take from the fossil fuel industry now in place, what they're doing makes sense for people who give zero fucks about the environment.

The cost of adding storage to renewables is minor enough that it doesn't come close to shifting the price in favor of fossil fuels, so either demand is growing faster than supply where you are, or you're getting ripped off.

Here's data on the effect of renewable power on consumer electricity prices: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclimatebrink.co...

As soon as I read the headline I was wondering what kind of right-wing morons willing to pay extra money to use coal instead of renewables just won an election there.

Maybe they mixed up 5x faster with 1/5th slower?

Tech needs sanity AND unions.

I've seen the same pattern myself with many companies, it's just a common ghost job, and that company is just one offender among many. I agree legislation is needed to crack down on ghost job postings.

Why not both?

Property rights, hooray hurrah, gotcha.

You may be conflating a landlord with a property manager. Many landlords also happen to work as their own property manager, but they're not the same thing. A landlord who is also their own property manager, plumber, painter etc would happen to be doing labor because of the other roles related to their property they took on to support their role as a landlord, but none of the labor is inherent to the landlord role. There are landlords who are just landlords and don't do any labor:

https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/comments....

Have to disagree, blahabl is more correct even if in a snarky way. The status quo or something like it is usually an option you can vote for, if a person wants the status quo they could vote for that. A person who abstains from voting is, maybe not standing behind, but at least signing themselves up to be carried along for the ride by whatever decision is made by those who did vote. They can have regrets about it just like those who voted for the winning decision could, but they likewise have to blame themselves for what they did on the day of the vote.

Actually only 37% of the British electorate voted for Brexit, vs. 34% who voted to remain. This is why it's important to vote, otherwise you end up like the remaining 29% who woke up the next morning and started frantically Googling various wordings of "Wut is Brexit?"

So probably at least 6 out of 10 potential voters in the UK would readily admit that Brexit was a mistake.