Linux Mint Cinnamon has this feature, with package `nemo-preview`. It even plays back actual video when spacebar'ing on an MKV file, something I can't do in macOS!
But has it added pop-up per-app (and then per domain/port/ip) block/allow functionality in the Linux DE GUI yet? Thanks to your whole team for the awesome work.
A big one I will sorely miss as I transition to Linux (and it's the only one I can think of right now), is the ability to rename and move around files while they are open!
OK here's another, very related: the ability to have apps remember their open files when you quit and re-open them.
These are significant productivity boosters, and I will miss them. It's definitely a trade-off, but now Apple has tipped the scales too much in favour of Linux...for me.
Really hoping the ARM acquisition can transform Nvidia from the inside, make them a responsible & cooperative partner.
AMD seems to be doing well.
Intel is indeed faltering, yes. Especially with process technology. Given what they've got to work with in the process department, they've been building neat good stuff. Xe just launched & in a mobile form factor is quite competitive, no longer leaving AMD APUs to dominate. These same mobile parts have far higher integration than anything AMD can offer, with dual USB4/TB4 ports good for 2 x 40Gbps. Intel has a range of neat things few others have. Intel has a pretty competent wifi that integrates nicely. Their new Tremot Atom cores are a great value, really nice light-weight cores, & scale up to 24 cores on expensive but interesting cellular radio platforms. Xeon-D is a wonderful connectivity platform that there is not much competition for. Alas Intel cancelled OmniPath, which was a brilliant thing to integrate & give away on server CPUs almost for free (~$100 on a >> $1000 chip). And alas the process tech really hampers big server cores, but intel has been getting more competitive.
At this point, Linux need competition. Nvidia thus-far has never played well, Linux4Tegra and CUDA are walled gardens & driver support is otherwise awful, still no good way to run Wayland. AMD is doing great & Linux support is very high. But we kind of need Intel to keep AMD from growing lethargic & un-competitive, from exploiting their new market position as, well, better.
This is infuriating. I spent over $5000 on a 16-inch MBP in only January this year.
If I'm a lawyer, CEO, or a human rights journalist (or just anyone) who professionally needs a reasonably secure device as the normal expectation, how can it be reasonable to be required to have your laptop with you at all times in order to maintain its security?
Is there precedent in consumer law that if security integrity of hardware is a normal feature of that product category and a computer model is fundamentally unfixable in this aspect, then you have the right to demand a refund or a replacement with a model not containing the same defect? (I know that this depends on your country. My country has strong consumer law.)
It's interesting to think about where the line is there. If someone really wants to compromise your device, then they could open it up and plant a bug anyway. But this feels over the line and grounds for being a manufacturer hardware fault, because attacking it would not require to physically modify the device but to merely use the device in the manner that it already came from the manufacturer.
Your filevault password has not been compromised by any T2 issue.
The secure enclave is rate limited.
If you are such a valuable target, then the key logger needed to get your credentials can be installed T2 or without T2 issues. Once "they" have that they can decrypt your drive.
The number of folks who are targeted at this level with physical direct access is relatively small. Even for state actors, REMOTE compromise is MUCH more appealing.
Except that lots of laptops have hardware based root of trust, encryption, and security management using industry standards.
It's apple that does something exotic, breaking industry standards, and then calls what should be standard by some new name for marketing reasons. Same with how lots of people think a "retina" display is some wonderful apple invention and not just a standard samsung panel.
Having used many non-Apple laptops, "industry standard" means complete and unmitigated garbage to me. "Industry standard" laptops are awful to use and only get better once you approach Apple's price range - at which point why give up your Mac?
No, really, does anyone actually enjoy using cheap laptops? The only use case I think they would excel at is as a thin client for VMWare/Cisco virtualization solutions, or as a barebones terminal for Linux distros (at which point anything with a keyboard works for you).
Anyways, if laptops do security the same way laptops do touchpads, I would not be excited to depend on that. At all.
Fury is going a bit far. I've always been taught it is fundamental if a device with secure data is not in a secure location you have already lost. Why the VA gets in such trouble for losing their laptops no matter how well encrypted.
It would be completely irresponsible not to physically secure your hardware if you were in a position of trust.
I feel for you, but your expectations are out of whack with reality. Any Windows laptop, properly maintained, is a reasonably secure device.
You can "restore" "reasonable" security to your Mac even in the almost unthinkable light of a possible actually available exploit, that can be reasonably be expected to affect you personally, by using a strong filevault password. Maybe you want to add a tripwire (file integrity) check at boot time, or a manual check when you mount any drive.
No, the precedent you ask for does not exist. In fact, the opposite is true.
Actually, in my country the consumer culture is extremely different to America. Consumers are not left high and dry if a manufacturer screws them over or was incompetent (such as design defects). Remedies are on sliding scales commensurate with the situation.
This is probably partially why I'm getting downvoted. Cultural differences. Americans are not aware of what's possible when things are actually fair for the consumer. They're used to 'tough luck' culture.
Upon further reading, I'm concluding this might not be a massive problem with other precautions in place, but the valid discussion point still remains. If a manufacturer designs a product which turns out to have a problem caused to the consumer which breaches reasonable expectations of its usability, and either needs repairing / recalling / replacing / refunding, many countries offer resource to the consumer. Under this principle, I wonder about unpatchable hardware security defects which cause a major problem...it needs to be explored more.
Apple never sold you an unhackable laptop. It isn't cultural differences, it's simply that you weren't lied to and your hardware didn't stop being "fit for purpose".
From their ad copy -
"Every MacBook Pro is equipped with the Apple T2 Security Chip — our second‑generation custom Mac silicon designed to make everything you do even more secure. It includes a Secure Enclave coprocessor that powers Touch ID and provides the foundation for secure boot and encrypted storage capabilities. It also consolidates many discrete controllers, including the system management controller, audio controller, and SSD controller, into one."
Firstly, let's make it clear that we are now talking about broad concepts and not necessarily how it applies to the example of this situation at hand.
Under many jurisdictions' consumer laws, advertised features or promises by the manufacturer are not everything that they are legally held to. There is also statutory warranty, and other parts of consumer law, which can include rules on basic expectations of how that category of consumer item is expected to perform (I'm not talking CPU speeds, but major issues like a keyboard fundamentally not working at a reasonable success rate), how long it's reasonably expected to work without failing (for that category of item), and so on.
Very broad principles, but with some clear examples provided by consumer bodies to consumers, and it's reviewed on a case by case basis. You can bring it to the proverbial small claims court (or consumer complaint body), and they can review the claim.
I suppose I just won't bring up this matter to HN before. It's too alien to the US consumer situation and mustn't apply to most readers here.
Any decent smartcard has physical security no worse than T2, but it will probably cost 100 times less, and it will at least allow you to chose a long enough password instead of 4 digit pin.
>Is there precedent in consumer law that if basic hardware security is a normal feature of that product category and a computer model has fundamentally unfixable hardware in this aspect, then you have the right to demand a refund or a replacement with a model not containing the same defect?
I wish society were more sex-positive, stopped considering matters of sexuality or sexual activity to be so controversial, and stopped responding to them with such moral outrage to the point that your personal sexual activity could be considered something blackmail-worthy!
(I think this is a bigger problem in America than Europe.)
In either case, indeed, we need privacy (because other countries have terrible persecution around matters of mere sexuality) and as much maturity as we can muster when discussing it. I'm so proud of how mature this comment section is. Not a single giggling sexual joke in sight - at least here up at the top. Other sites would be riddled with it, with nothing serious discussed.
I think it's an insightful observation. All humans are subject to being corrupted in by power. It's explained by our biology. Until our biology is no longer a meaningful problem, we need systems that hold those in power accountable. No one should be above the law. We need true equality.
"...police are strongly addictive personalities... Surveillance & control are drugs, ones that they are not capable of putting down."
That is insightful, when you acknowledge the fact that it is actually part of the human condition? Okey-dokey. If you mean "equality under the law" then I have good news: no need to wait for robotization - we are already have that equality (unless you want to marry a tree, sue a massive corporation, or some other edge case). True equality would be the end of us all, the death of art, the halt of social progress. Any action that could yield a change to one's circumstances would need to be coordinated and executed with every other human at the same time. I can't think of a scenario where that could happen that doesn't involve a complete loss of personal identity.
It also may be because of what I observe as 'masculine thinking' vs. 'feminine thinking'. It appears to be drawn biologically from the genetic male sex and 'male brain' vs. genetic female sex and 'female brain'. Natural variations exist in all things, but if you look at what's most common, with biological sex differences (whch feed cultural 'stereotypes'), they still are what they are.
See Robert Green's book "The Laws of Human Nature" (2018) for his take on the following. It's very insightful. (Chapter entitled, "The Law of Gender Rigidity")
'Masculine thinking' prefers to categorise and bifurcate. (Dualism.) I'm a guy and I consider myself having a 'super' 'male' brain in some aspects even more than the average. I find it very hard to multi-task, and I easily hyperfocus.
Male thinking solves problems by breaking things down and focusing on one part of the picture at a time. It's about specialisation.
Female thinking treats things more as a whole, with everything connected. It solves problems by looking at the whole picture at once. It's about multi-tasking.
I now see that 'male thinking' (as opposed to males), such as 'specialisation', dominates modern capitalism and public policy, and often to detriment. Most females at top levels in business at this time in our culture would appear to mostly have this success because they are 'atypically' strong in 'masculine thinking'.
Personally, I think such leadership needs more female thinking. I'm slowly trying to understand it more, as my own starting point. Modern diversity policies that change what's on the outside (how many penises are around the table) don't actually solve the real problems. We're still picking what's taking place on the inside. We need diversity of things far deeper - to embrace and celebrate true 'feminine thinking' - not just what's on the surface.
So anyway, this could help explain why female sexuality is seen to be more 'fluid', on average, than among males. It's not so much how people actually are, as how people see themselves, because of how they tend to be wired. And this is not even factoring in that there is greater cultural stigma around a male being bi vs. a female being bi.
But who says legitimate whistleblowers have specific rules under which they must do it? (E.g. they must only enter into employment or servitude with zero suspicion of employer or zero intent to leak information of any wrongdoing observed? Isn't that against the very principles of whistleblowing, and even potentially legal protections under whistleblowing laws?)
His actions are only seen as a 'sin' if you already agree his whistleblowing wasn't warranted.
This is probably off-topic but on a very broad level, from a privacy point of view I think it is important to separate 'service provider' (controlling the instance of your data) from 'software' developer / 'hardware' maker (controlling the mechanisms of your data privacy), no matter who and how open-source they are.
I'm not sure this instinct applies much to this situation, but it immediately came to mind. Vertical integration is where user privacy (from service providers) starts to erode.
Ideally, we should have competing but inter-operable service providers on common platforms and protocols which have nothing to do with the service providers.
