"Silicon baked private keys" are really vague buzzwords. That's pretty much standard and it can be implemented in a variety of ways.
Not sure why you're calling this non-unlockable. Everything is unlockable with enough money.
123 karma · joined October 2, 2021
Not sure why you're calling this non-unlockable. Everything is unlockable with enough money.
NVIDIA doesn't place transistors in particular configurations. Foundries do that for them. And it is currently common sense that the software is the moat, not the hardware design.
Good luck changing the ecosystem to use AMD.
Ummm taxis aren't everywhere like NYC or something. Broadly speaking Uber will pick you up in an arbitrary place and take you anywhere.
Executables, daemons, CLI, sockets, whatever you want. Rust no problem. I have even run Python and Node.js
No, I don't think that was ever any kind of goal set by anyone ever
Indeed it may be true today that "restoring stock firmware and relocking the bootloader will give you a normal Pixel", I completely understand what you mean.
But that is NOT the same thing as "Pixels do not have eFuses to flag devices that have been modified before". Please share data supporting this claim if you have it.
It is possible that existing Pixels have such eFuses that internally flag your device (perhaps bubbling up to the Google Play Integrity APIs) but they don't kill device features per Google's good will.
My question is 100% about the hardware inside the Titan M2 and how it is used by Google. I don't think the answer is public, and anyone who has reverse engineered it to such detail won't share the answer either.
> The Xbox 360, Nintendo Switch, Pixel 6 and Samsung Galaxy S22 are known for using eFuses this way.[8]
Anti-rollback protection is a security feature, eFuses are hardware primitives that can be used to implement it. Bootloader locking is another security feature that can be implemented with eFuses.
If you have any data denying the use of eFuses in the Pixel 6, please share it, that is what I was interested in this sub-thread. I really did not understand the relevance and the correctness of your comment.
Myself I have not reverse engineered the Titan M2 security chip, but surely it uses eFuse or OTP memory for anti rollback protection mechanisms and such.
These are really basic hardware security primitives. I'm curious why you're under the impression Pixels wouldn't use eFuse.
Man I'm legit super interested in this. Roast me a bit more please. Why is it such an amateur line of thinking? The OP's argument is f*cking circular, you should discard the argument completely if you care about logic, no? I don't see it, please help me see it. TEACH ME.
> Also, you didn’t suspect anything. A language model thought for you. Your role was in copying and pasting. Not understanding or commanding.
No, you are assuming, why are you assuming I can't think? Notice, once more, the use of the basic ad hominem (how can I not mention this?). Why do you bring up your peer-reviewed friend? This is the appeal to authority fallacy again, are you freaking kidding me? Why don't you share with us why my line of reasoning is childish or whatever, instead of "my PhD friend said no"?
I smelled circular logic and decided to check with Claude - that's it buddy! It should NOT be relevant whether or not I copied bits from AI, because it is another fallacy. Would you pick on me if I had consulted a dictionary or used Wikipedia to double check fallacies?
> It’s in no philosophy text, either. Because it is, in itself, an appeal to authority. (Incorporation isn’t a logical primitive. It is a social construct.)
100% I will eat shit on this one detail only, of course the LLM went off the rails a little bit here, but why did everyone get so stuck on a silly rephrasing/aliasing of canonical-form fallacies, when everyone can clearly sense the canonical-form that it points to.
Absolute idiots
Why would I care about people making fun of me or IRC/Reddit etiquette or whatever? What kind of an argument is that? I thought on HN we seek the truth about the topic, not social approval right? Maybe you are projecting your own insecurities about discussing things online?
I firmly believe I added helpful indications that the arguments could be fallacious. It is up to the readers of the thread to keep my indications in consideration or not. I would advise you to focus on _other_ arguments, instead of the potentially fallacious and baseless argument.
I really don't understand the issues with using. You're all okay with using Cursor and Lovable to aid and speed up coding tasks right? Seems like such a weird double standard to me. More interestingly it seems to come from an emotional place, not a place of logic.
I disagree. If I suspect a fallacy I will cite it in your face.
I also disagree with your analysis of the fallacies that the AI identified. I do not care to continue or have time to elaborate much though. Sorry, I just wanted to let you know I strongly disagree with how you are all hurt by perfectly fine AI-generated arguments.
Btw can you all please tell me just one more time that the "appeal to corporate omniscience" isn't in the Wikipedia list of fallacies (which is just as arbitrary a source as a good LLM)? Tomato tomato, arguing semantics is soooo boring