PPIN seems to mostly be a server feature. I don't feel like going into BIOS right now but I found this about a PPIN option on a Lenovo server. It shows an AMD processor so it's highly relevant. On my system I don't have /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology/ppin and there's nothing about ppin in dmesg, but I don't know if that's because the feature's not enabled, or compiled in, or what.

NIMBYs aren't people who don't want things to be made. They're people who want them made somewhere else. But only the wealthy are clamoring for all of us to be replaced with computers, so that's not apt.

LLMs don't have children.

Half learning, half having the logic augmented. That's a remodel.

Obligatory "Welcome to Slashdot, you must be new here."

This has been going on for literally years.

Anonymous posting is an option for logged in users, not a thing that people can do without logging in, so they know exactly who is doing this. Slashdot has removed accounts before, therefore it is clear that they want this to occur.

That's what TPM is fundamentally about. You talked in another post about it being for separation, that's a trust function, so clearly you know it's about trust. That shows that this comment begins disingenuously.

Open Source TPM software and hardware exist, and are under the user's control in a way that any other TPM is not. Not every motherboard has a TPM slot, but boards with them are not hard to come by, so it is feasible for users to have a TPM that they actually do control. Neither the TPM in your CPU nor the average add-in TPM is actually that. Being able to remove things from it is not the same thing as being in control of it, although it's a part of being in control.

The "He who can destroy a thing controls it" idea from Dune was about political control, not direct and literal. You can destroy that data at any time, but that's the extent of your control over it. That's not nothing, but it's far from the hardware working for you.

Right, that's why the feature is not for my benefit. If I want to bypass security between applications which is not for my benefit (for example to prevent me from copying data that I'm actually intending to copy) and I can't do that because TPM says no, that's working against me.

Having a separate secure enclave is a good idea, having it be so secure that I can't do what I want with it when I want to is a bad one. Most users won't even try, you only need to make it so that they can't trivially be tricked into it. A big warning, a short delay, a hoop to jump through so that a person who can't read the warning can't get there.

That's what they say.

Do you believe everything people say?

They can't, and only people who know how nothing whatsoever works thinks they can.

Religion is not compatible with society.
You need to wake the fuck up.

Not IME. I changed the CPU on this system that I'm using right now back when it still had Windows on it without requiring reactivation. It took changing the motherboard to have to reactivate.

Your response was to go completely into the weeds. On what planet is $250k in equipment a lot anyway? Saddest brag ever.

Hahahhahahahhahahhaha

Never heard of Fox or Sinclair huh?

They're the two most popular "news" networks and both are ever so slightly rapeublican-leaning

Don't suck a billionaire's dick and tell me it's a lollipop.

I explained what I was thinking in the prior comment.

So it sounds like you know specifically how they identified the user's CPU. What means was actually employed?

It's all been over since we got processors with microcode, which could have something like a TPM in them. I'm not saying all of them do or anything like that, only that any of them could.

If you really want a computer you can trust, you're going to have to get vintage about it.