It's not parents. It's society. Schools is just one element of it, but everything we do is somehow interlinked and tied together with common understandings of what constitutes "business hours". The shift is far more difficult than any one subset of people adjusting their schedule, which is why this stuff is fundamentally dealt with at the clock level in the first place.

But one thing is clear: This is *NOT* a problem for a state level. There's nothing worse than dividing clocks further in a country. Yes the timezone may not be ideal for everyone, but there's real benefit into having the largest group of people on a consistent time, especially if you're on a border city.

Fun anecdote 1: It's really fun driving down Tweed Heads in Australia and watching one half of the street suddenly be open while the other isn't because as you cross the road to go from the hairdresser to the cafe you change timezone.

Fun anecdote 2: I found out I lost my job on the news because my brilliant employer released an embargoed press release that was due to be lifted at 10am to coincide with a plant wide meeting taking place at 10am. But they forgot to mention to the media head offices (based in NSW/Victoria) that they were talking about 10am AEST. So at 10am AEDT (9am AEST) I learned that they were closing our plant while drinking a coffee in front of the TV showing breaking news.

Depending on where you live the light before or after work may be a case of not preferencing it before or after, or not having to worry about it at all. The idea that a solution "works best" for people's "natural clocks" is just gas lighting. If it worked best for people there wouldn't be a debate. If it were part of any natural clock we wouldn't have a sudden 1 hour shift.

This won't ever suit everyone. There's only pro and con argument to be made based on people's personal situation and above all: desires.

Me? I say DST year round. Maybe if kids learned there's no scary monster in the dark the next generation wouldn't grow up to be such wimps. And as for the adults? Well I'm not a morning person, fuck those people, let them sit in the dark while I enjoy my evening in the sun :-)

And now let's hear from the morning people.
And the helicopter parents while we're at it.

Or put in basic street lighting while also not raising a bunch of soft little fairy floss wimps?

Presumably because people in the USA are so soft their kids can't spend a few minutes in the "dark" (streetlights are over 200 years old now)

Well we'd have all tried grabbing him by the pussy but none of us have hands big enough to do justice to the massive pussy that TACO is.

They were talking about the present tense. Your privacy is being tracked by every private corporation and bought and sold for profit. Your security is getting shot or strangled by law enforcement at random, sometimes execution style while you're already on the ground. Your freedom extends to being detained and jailed for the colour of your skin despite being a full US citizen.

If anything facial recognition would be an upgrade compared to what you currently enjoy in this country.

A TPM in the user's control is a TPM that can be modified by software with the user's privileges. That defeats the entire purpose of a hardware secure enclave. The extent of the user control over such a system should be to nuke it from orbit (for which Windows provides 3 separate ways to do). As soon as you have the ability to see or modify keys to individual pieces of software, so does any malware (in fact malware is more likely to be able to do so given the ample examples we have of malware running with privileges above the maximum users ones (e.g. kernel level / system level).

The argument against this is identical to the argument of not putting backdoors in encryption. If *you* have that level of control, so does an attacker, at which point why screw around with TPM at all, just drop your critical information on your disk and change the permission on the file (only being slightly facetious here since this is literally how the alternative is implemented).

You may think so if you have no idea how the feature works. Secure Boot keys are 100% in control of the user. You can generate your own keys not only for Linux, but also for Windows ensuring that you and only you are completely in control of the boot process.

But you're too slack to do that, so you just use Microsoft's pre-installed key. It's like buying a lock with a serial number where if you ever lose your house key you can just call someone up and get them to make you a new one. Don't be slack. Learn how to use the features of your computer properly.

No, completely false, your distro can work with secure boot using MS's shim because you the user are too slack to use the feature properly and correctly.

You do not need any involvement from MS to securely boot Linux. In fact you shouldn't. The keys used for secure boot are under user control and user modifiable. Just follow some step by step instructions online to sign your bootloader and load your custom keys into UEFI. You can then proceed to delete Microsoft's keys rendering their shim useless.

The fun part about this, you can even do this in Windows. Yes, that's right, you can secure boot windows with your own key and delete Microsoft's from your motherboard (well partially delete, MS's key remains present for factory reset purposes, but at least it won't boot anything).

Normally I'd agree, but in this case this is the hardware working precisely as you want. A "safe" store that allows a root user to modify individual keys in flight is not safe from any software running as root privileges, and we have countless examples of malware running with rights far more privileged than the user.

This is very much the same argument as to why you don't build an encryption backdoor into chat services. If you want the system to work *against* the user, you'd implement it the way you suggest, in a way that provides no security at all. May as well just save files to the disk then and change the file persmission.

It's not the feature's fault you don't understand basic security.

Your complaint is with the application, not the security system.

You've failed to understand the concept of a secure enclave.

And yet we've "cured" several sources of cancer preventatively because people are actively researching and producing such cures. I assume you're an anti-vaxxer and haven't heard of the HPV vaccine? Or the HepB/C vaccine which eliminates one of the most common causes of liver cancer? Your UID is low enough that presumably no one has shoved a camera in your arse yet, lucky you (or unlucky depending if you're into that), but colonoscopies have basically eliminated 90% of colorectal cancer in the west. All of this based on a history of medical research.

Sorry that your conspiracy doesn't line up with real life.

A good rule of thumb is 3m^2 of radiative area per kW, and that assumes you can heat that radiative surface to the same temperature. A NVIDIA B200 has 1.2kW to dissipate.

The JWST is 6.5m across and presented an incredible engineering feat. The sunshield is 21m across and completely flexible which a radiative surface cannot be. These were true engineering feats.

The ISS is a closer example of how you can build something large with brute force. It's actually a smidge over 100m on the longest dimension, and it took 40 dedicated individual launches and cost $60bn to assemble. You could build 60 hyperscale datacentres on earth for the cost of 1 small datacentre in space.

Very few people here are experts. But most people here did pass basic physics, and a few of us have an actual interest in development of equipment for space. Point is: heat is a big enough problem that I don't ever want to deal with it, period. I'll design electronics and thermal solutions for them down here thanks.

Oh by the way, why do we measure AI datacentres in MW again?

If you mean 1minute then sure yeah I am that impatient that I hate the idea of spending 1 minute looking at a logo. I've got places to be damnit!

No the problem is that *you* don't know how to access the information. Windows provides 3 distinct ways to clear all TPM data. Your UEFI provides ways to clear TPM data. It is under *YOUR* control. The idea of each app only having access to its own information is foundational to hardware security. The fact that a root user can't access information al-a-carte is foundational to the feature, and not DRM. You still have the ability to clear it.

Do you write your password on a post-it note and stick it under the desk? Because that sounds like the type of approach you take to understanding security.