If you read the page it says 2026-06-04.

Ah. I read the post, but only saw "2024-07-16 04:52 ChanServ changed [...]"

On mobile I didn't see the full URL, and zoomed before I saw the calendar. My bad.

> one of my friends is a very senior engineer who lead a lot of the sptm work and controls a lot of boot, may talk to him about it (obviously he hasn't told me anything that isn't public)

For the lazy.

I'm pretty sure I have this, for all senses, and I only just learned there's things other than iñner eye (which I only learned of a few months).

If people have an "inner taste" or "inner hearing", why bother eating a sweet or playing music?

> Asked what sits beside the television, they answer without hesitation, but “we experience these as an awareness of a set of spatial facts.”

This helps me understand what little I do seem to have.

Maybe the most vivid thing that I can imagine is the world map, but... I wouldn't call it visual. But I can recall that Europe is east of US, and Italy looks like a boot.

Perhaps it is just spatial facts.

How do you decide what you're in the mood to eat?

For me, I sort of imagine the sensation of eating something and observe how I react to it. If it's a strong positive reaction, that's what I'm in the mood for. Otherwise, if it's kind of a more bored reaction, I cast my mind out for another idea and try again.

> If people have an "inner taste" or "inner hearing", why bother eating a sweet or playing music?

Because the interior version is strictly inferior to the real thing, at least for me. It's, maybe, 80% as good, but that last 20% is a real humdinger.

Especially for music, I have a hard time hearing it in my head and not playing/singing/drumming along with it. Currently working on "Winds of Change" by the Scorpions as practice, and it's basically been playing in my head for the last 72 hours.

I do have to listen to it occasionally to refresh, but it certainly makes learning music easier... if not infuriating. Looking at you Lou Bega, and Rob Thomas.

80% is still pretty high!

Does 80% mean "tastes like a dull chocolate bar, but still basically a chocolate bar", or more like "like a nice chocolate bar but somehow 20% less enjoyable in some looser way"?

Perhaps this is why I can't identify the beat in the music.

Like a nice chocolate bar, but echoed - so I can remember what it tastes like enough to want one, but not satisfy the urge to actually have one. Ephemeral, rather than satisfying.

Are you sure it's not just chocolate stuck in your teeth?

More seriously, that's fascinating. I don't think I experience this?

The device is acoustic. Think of it as a babel fish for telling fire to stop.

Sure, but this "invention" isn't new. It seems to make the internet rounds every few months. Here's one from 11 years ago that looks almost identical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPVQMZ4ikvM - I wonder how their "preliminary patent application" went...

Granted, as another post noted: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10569115B2/en

It's a big bet to not have a plan for needing power.

I expect as LLMs penetrate further, we'll see much more of it, continually running, and doing more 3D work.

> I need help.

Call SOS on your telegraph?

Used signal drums.

That is much fewer LoC than I expected.

How is "offline e-reader" handled? Does CUPS retry?

Do you do this outside of your LAN?

> open platform like the Xteink is that it should uncover loads of novel and unsatisfied use cases

+1.

And it's worth celebrating the underlying technologies that enable this: ESP32, and RISC-V.

Anyone know what's needed for eink to become cheaper?

Is this is meaningfully different than the risk to any engineer working in security on ~central infrastructure?

> even if you don't have the keys you may still control the implementation

The sorts of places that care about remote attestation also care about insider risk.

> is this any conceptually different from using PKCS11 provider for TPM in OpenSSL?

PKCS11 doesn't allow you to attest that the key is resident in the PKCS11 provider, which as you say, the author alludes to, but doesn't cover.

> with real TPM, the key could be locked to a specific configuration register value, which makes less sense for VMs.

A vTPM is as real as a physical TPM chip.

The question is which TPM endorsement certificate CAs you are willing to trust.

For some that might the manufacturer of TPM chips, for others it might be their VM provider. (For some, none: for some both!)

Trusting their VM provider isn't so crazy if the VM provider is able to influence the guest code anyway.

> PKCS11 doesn't allow you to attest that the key is resident in the PKCS11 provider, which as you say, the author alludes to, but doesn't cover.

You don’t need that if you include quote in CSR and then CA validates the quote and writes the validation result in the certificate. Certificate then contains proof that private key is in TPM.

I thought you was suggesting a TPM wasn't needed at all, but a TPM is needed to get quotes.

That said, TPM quotes are attesting the value of TPM PCRs which are just registers of hashes (representing the state of the machine).

When making a CSR, you can use https://tpm2-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/man/tpm2_certify... to attest a key is TPM-resident.

I think your central thesis is that at the time of TLS establishment, why not use PKCS11 (with a cert signed by a CA that has validated a TPM certification), and I agree: services should probably integrate via PKCS11.

I just read your original comment "is this any conceptually different from using PKCS11 provider for TPM in OpenSSL?" and yes, I agree it's not conceptually different.

Sorry to have missed that!