I'm not sure I understand your question. Sometimes they get "taken care of" instantly by software. Sometimes it takes moderators minutes or hours to see them and "take care of" them. Other times we don't see it and an email from a user asks us to look into it, which we do. That can take a bit longer because there's an extra hop in the path.
Just out of curiosity, what sort of answer are you expecting? Your post reads as vaguely accusatory to me - like you're implying that messes are being left intentionally
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Yep. And have posted a couple of times suggesting mild enhancements for those of us that do. I believe there are plug-in or extension type reader thingymabobs that help with that too.
Your account was likely rate limited because you decided to make a new account here, and new accounts have severe limitations on rate of posting comments. You could have just as easily decided to use your existing account and would've been fine.
Ah, I see, could you try asking in a more neutral fashion in the future? I've noticed the last couple years that a lot of potentially interesting or valid criticism sabotages itself with weak implications of conspiracy followed by accusations of persecution.
In my limited understanding there are two levels to it.
At the network level, plain Wi-Fi doesn't really cut it. To get reliable connections with lightbulbs and stuff you need a mesh network where each thing connects to nearby things and they form a network among themselves. That requires a wireless transport designed for the purpose. Zigbee is one such transport, and Thread (awful name) is a new one. Both are open standards, but the main advantage of Thread is that it doesn't need a central hub. It just needs a "border router" to talk to other networks (if things need to). Thread is based on IPv6.
At the application level, you need a protocol for controlling IoT stuff, that knows about those kinds of devices and allows an application to, for example, tell a lighbulb what colour to be. This has been done with vendor-specific protocols to date, over UDP or HTTP or whatever. Matter (also an awful name) is a new open standard for it. It can work over any IP network, including Thread ones (or WiFi or ethernet or whatever).
So between them, Matter and Thread should provide standards based connectivity and control for IoT devices, and as a key design requirement they should allow it all to work locally, i.e. without the cloud connection so many vendors have forced on people. They seem like Good Things to me.
The above is just what I've picked up and may contain inaccuracies, which I would appreciate being corrected upon.
I suspect it's a combination of NIH and the big players wanting to control the certification process and chip supply.
Z-Wave has been working perfectly fine for years. There have been protocol upgrades, new hardware, a pretty large ecosystem, etc. Zigbee apparently suffers from interop problems.
UDMI/DTDL/Watson/matter/ZigBee all try to do "universal device management over a single API", matter is just the latest incarnation.
Matter is already 20gb and suffering from API sprawl before it's even released. I don't think it has much of a future as "that protocol" beyond whatever corporate life support its on.
That's a load of bullshit. With Z-Wave I have a pick of over 20-30 vendors. Z-Wave is just as open as Matter. It's just not controlled by Google and/or Apple.
You may have choice, but a vast proportion of the market aren’t even aware of it, and wouldn’t know where to buy it. They see, understand, and seek out the branding for the ecosystem that they use already.
This is unfortunate, as I like free and open as much as the next HN user, but it’s the nature of innovation and socio-technical ecosystems.
Bard's also not available in Canada yet! I feel a bit like a broken record. But it's something a bit shocking and I believe needs to be addressed. Why not google? What's the real answer?
I too have theories, but I'd like to hear the reason. If it was the governments doing, Google can engage the Canadians to help them. Given that they're silent on why, I am led to believe it's Googles bottom line.
Secure Boot by itself is plenty open and user maintainable. On my HP laptop I only have my own keys installed and it only boots my particular Linux install. It won't boot Windows at all nor regular Linux distros like Ubuntu. Other manufacturers intentionally limit their hardware, but that's nothing new, really.
This particular issue is not so much about being able to manage the certificates in Secure Boot. Rather, you can't revoke the old signatures because many people rely on media having them (legitimately) and expect to be able to boot from that media. So now, those systems will boot anything with the old signature, such as a compromised windows bootloader that will happily accept some malware if asked nicely.
According to the arch wiki that doesn't always work so well (didn't try it, though). But what does, is signing the MS certificate with your own key. I do that on my work laptop and it works well. I don't need windows on my personal one.
The advice around the keys and signing is pretty generic. What's arch specific are the various integrations with the package manager than handle automatic signing of the kernel image after an upgrade.
Lower on the page there's a section about signing MS's certificates, so you can dual-boot windows while using your own keys. I have that setup on my work laptop and it works fine.
Sounds like it's pretty garbage though. Given that it's currently broken. How can my computers security depend on MS like that? Theyre not interested in my interests. I think I'll see if now I can replace it with something thats less conflicted, like coreboot.
Can't wait until the other various secure enclave gets hacked so I can get rid of them too.
If you don't want to use it, can't you just disable it?
Again, this isn't a failure of secure boot, but a windows security issue. Basically you can't prevent something from running (the bootloader) if you want to be able to... run it.
Getting rid of secure boot and friends wouldn't change anything to this situation. Either you consider you're unlikely to be infected by black lotus or something similar, in which case you're fine (with SB enabled or disabled). Or you can be infected, in which case disabling secure boot doesn't actually do anything, since the rootkit will run fine without it.
What is broken in this particular situation is not secure boot but the windows bootloader.
Is it though, or is it the best CEOs at marketing themselves work at the best firms? The idea is that you're sort being Skinner boxed since each CEO and company is different and it changes with time too.
