I have talked about this before. The issue goes further in my opinion and starts to effect property rights themselves. In particular locked down hardware starts to effect the owners right of exclusion. The right of exclusion loosely is the right include or exclude something from/usesing some property. When the hardware is locked down the owner can know longer solely make those decisions. Instead in the instance of like an iDevice Apple makes those choices instead of the owner by only allowed code they have signed or signatures they allow.
thanks for sharing. the loss of property rights is an aspect I hadn’t considered… would be great to brainstorm further with an actual lawyer on these topics
Probably would be better carefully tap into the signal lines to the LCD panel, and record and decode that data to then make a video. However if we assume that even the cable going to the panel is encrypted and the board on the panel is decrypting it. (although I have never messed with a panel like that). However it still has to got to drive the rows and columns of the display, so then data to column and row drivers is still in the open.
If we were to even assume the Column/Row drivers chips only accepted encrypted data they still have the individual traces coming out of them. The pitch of the traces is super tiny, but still possible to tap, but would be a massive pain, but still do able.
Although you can get devices that strip the encryption from an HDMI signal these days so it's kinda moot. So it's not exactly something anyone would need to do these days.
Oh gawd that commercial... Yea I remember that pretenious commercial and it's end line when she says "What's a computer?", and I was wtf really what your holding is a computer.
Sure a computer where the boot loader is locked down to the point you can't even load your own signing keys or side-load, effectively taking away full ownership of the device from the owner, but it's still a computer.
Well I will say if your running servers hit billions of times per day. Offloading processing to the client when safe to do so starts make sense financially. Google does not have to pay for your CPU or storage usage ect...
Also I will say if said overhead is not too much it's not that bad of a thing.
not the OP, but zero dependencies is possible. Also zero dependencies has and can mean things a little differently depending on the context. Like your OS is a dependency. It is possible to have an application that does need an OS, yes and they exist. If a programming language is a dependency it's possible to write your own ect... Although generally people draw the line somewhere at something that is a common denominator for some environment.
Looking at the page it seems to more target towards library writers, if you draw the line at the programming language it's certainly possible to write useful libraries with no dependencies.
I know you're semi-joking, but the obvious answer is that they could've just used system defaults. The Google fonts dependency is pretty silly. It's also a bit egregious when trying to make this kind of bold statement because the fonts are actually hosted on `fonts.gstatic.com` which is sometimes aggressively blocked by adblockers.
An other post I have posted regarding this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288