You cannot, the OS does not have that level of access. Attestation is anchored in a (typically) non-replaceable bootloader and trusted execution environment, both of which the OS does not have access to. A remote server can verify that the attestation chain is signed by a hardware-backed key and contains the verified boot status and verification key. If you would change this information, it would be detected by the remote server, since the signature would not be valid anymore.
Is the UI really that important though? I assume most people use internet/app banking mainly to do two things: make payments, and look at transactions. I also assume most people don't do these things very often. Sure, a good UI is nice to have, but it isn't going to affect my life much if it's missing.
That's fine when you're lucky enough to be able to avoid a banking app, but for many banks its essentially compulsory. I can't login to internet banking without entering a 2FA code from the app. I'm even forced to have my Android settings a certain way, otherwise the app detects that my phone is "insecure" and refuses to run.
If you don't already know about it, I recommend https://www.keybr.com/ for learning new keyboard layouts. It introduces letters one at a time and waits until you hit a threshold speed before introducing the next one. If you commit to doing 15-30 minutes a day consistently, you can get to an acceptable speed more quickly than if you try to learn in an ad hoc way.
I'm in the same boat as OP. I've used keybr and https://monkeytype.com/, and while doing the exercises, I get pretty close to the speed and accuracy I had using a standard keyboard and qwerty, but I get much worse on both fronts when typing in the real world.
Have you added back in capitals/punctuation symbols? keybr defaults to only lower case words, but there are some options worth enabling to bring speed up:
From the preferences:
- Unlock a next key only when the previous keys are also above the target speed. (This will force you to practice keys that are problematic in context, it's frustrating but very helpful for reinforcement learning. For example, I struggle with B, C, V on my split because I don't use the “correct” fingers for those keys on a standard keyboard.)
- Add capital letters
- Add punctuation characters
- Add words to lessons (move it to the max)
Regarding getting much worse in the real world; IMO this isn't discussed enough. When you're relearning muscle memory, it's a very different beast to copy what you see (focused only on where your fingers are) as opposed to focusing on your thought and your fingers just “go there”. I, too, have found my speed plummet at first; at some point I decided to just go cold turkey and suffer being rather slow – trading it for eventual mastery.
In my case, because I was such a phenomenally sloppy typist, sometimes what felt slow was likely just as quick as a result of making fewer mistakes on the new split layout where my behaviour was forced to be better.
Yep, I've adjusted the settings, and that has definitely helped. When it comes to real world typing, it feels like I'm using a ridiculous amount of brain power to get the word out of my head and onto the keys.
Well, I don't see these sites as a complete solution. They're a way to get you from zero to "I can actually manage to write something, even if it's a bit awkward and slow". Once you cross that threshold, you make the switch and you learn by doing until you improve to an acceptable level.
I'm not at your stage yet, but my gut feeling is that I'll reach the same conclusion. I've bought a Glove 80 and figured that since I'm learning something new I may as well go all in and also switch to a a more modern keyboard layout (I chose Canary for it's emphasis on keyboard rolls). I love the abundance of thumb keys, and I'm planning to make good use of them in my WM and Emacs, as soon as my typing speed recovers to the point where I can function normally again.
> All typing guides I’ve seen recommend keeping fingers on home row. If you do that you end up pretty close to what that drawing shows.
I type at 130 - 135 wpm with my fingers on the home row. I don't have a posture anything like that drawing. In fact I have to make a conscious and uncomfortable effort to contort my hands into that position. It's far more natural (for me) to curve my fingers to hit the right keys rather than curving my wrists so that my hands are perpendicular to the keyboard. Like this:
The base idea behind keeping your fingers on the home row makes sense, as it promises that you can reach most of the commonly used keys by just curling or straightening your fingers, without moving your wrists at all. This doesn’t appear true in your picture. How does the person reach T with a finger that’s already straight, while still keeping a finger on A?
This is obviously not an exact science and I’m sure you manage to type just fine. However, if given a choice of regular and split, I don’t see how one could argue that they’re just the same. For me personally, I used to type with a lot of wrist movement and had trouble learning true touch typing for decades, but learned it on a split in a few weeks.
I'm not sure I can answer the first question, because I can reach the T just fine with my other finger on A and without contorting my wrist. Also, not that it changes my point, but I don't conform to a rigid version of the home-row rule or the standard touch-typing method, and I think that's how I achieve faster typing speeds than most. My hands dance around the keyboard and each movement is relative to where my fingers were on the last movement, while keeping the home row as a base. For example, in the standard method you'd use the right index finger for both Y and U. For me, if I've just typed a Y, I'll use the second finger to type U because that's more natural than re-using the index finger in different positions.
Also, just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that regular and split are the same. I have both types of keyboards and I'm planning to switch to split once I've mastered a new keyboard layout. My point was only in support of the original comment; namely, that that drawing is misleading.
Yeah, I get that. From how you describe it, I think my typing style was similar to yours. It works, but it’s significantly distinct from what’s presented as proper touch typing form. In my case, the downside was that due to all the movement, even tough I knew where the keys are, I tended to hit wrong keys a lot.
Wait have you been thinking "keep them on the home row" means any finger not actively typing a key must be in physical contact with its home row key??
This would at least help me make sense of people's wrist problems. Holy cow. Never mind how much it would slow somebody down. None of my fingers is ever stationary long enough to bring it back to a specific place typing 135 wpm.
As someone living in an EU state who has to regularly turn my VPN on and off to have full internet access, I can't agree with you that it's a "hoax". It's inconvenient enough for me that I'm looking into having a custom router that will switch between VPN destinations depending on what site I'm accessing.
Also "EU countries have higher press freedom than the US" is a strawman argument. We're not talking about press freedom. It's also an example of the fallacy of relative privation ("X isn't bad, because Y is worse than X"). It's like saying "It's a hoax that the US executes some prisoners, because Iran executes even more".
> who has to regularly turn my VPN on and off to have full internet access,
Is this because the EU or your country has blocked access, or some news site from the US blocking access from the EU because they don't want to deal with GDPR?
Italy. Examples of sites I can't access without VPN: torrent sites (including legal uses), betfair.com (which I use as a more accurate political predictor than polls), and various non-EU sites which block access because they've decided it's easier than complying with extra-territorial requirements imposed by the EU (this one isn't direct EU censorship, but it amounts to the same thing indirectly.
Sometimes I set my VPN destination to the UK (my country of origin) to get around these. Then I find that I have other problems. For example, certain Reddit posts are unavailable to me because someone has posted a comment that some algorithm has decided is NSFW (and therefore triggers age verification under the UK Online Safety Act 2023).
The result is that I have to turn my VPN on and off depending on what I'm trying to do.
I'm unfamiliar with Italian piracy laws and surveillance but I can tell you that accessing torrent sites for me was a simple matter of choosing a proper DNS provider.
This is a definition of censorship that seems to equate restrictions to any website or data stream as freedom, not whether the content of the site breaks local laws. This is a bit extreme, since most countries have laws against gambling, and if you could get around it by just setting up servers abroad, what value are local laws?
I'm not sure I see any practical difference between a government saying "we will block website X because we don't like it" and "we will block website X because we say that website X is illegal". For example if Iran blocks a website which is critical of the regime, do you consider it important whether such criticisms are against the law or not in Iran? I think most people would consider it censorship either way.
If you want to make gambling illegal, then make gambling illegal and then enforce that law. You don't need to resort to indirect measures that go beyond the law (e.g. by preventing me from merely viewing the odds on a gambling website).
Make gambling legal and regulated? Or tell citizens they are on their own and may be violating the law if they gamble, then look the other way and occasionally promote stories about citizens losing their money to illegal gambling.
US citizens living in states without legal gambling can often drive across state lines or to the nearest Native American reservation to gamble. There’s no way of preventing this nor does there need to be.
Why make gambling legal just to satisfy people who are circumventing the laws? That too by basing themselves outside of the country, as opposed to state lines.
Indian society is unconcerned, if not outright supportive of this law.
Your counterpoint zeroes in on the specific example, but in addressing it avoids the spirit of the issue.
People want certain laws and restrictions. You are arguing that if people choose to circumvent those laws, tough beans.
Heck, you could just have nations destabilize neighbors by this lassiez faire approach.
Because what you’re asking for is untenable in a world of billions of people scattered across countless nations, at least without cutting off the internet outside your borders entirely like North Korea. And trying to force the issue domestically just results in oppression and restriction of human rights. The global digital world is a formless, borderless space; this “freedom VPN” thing, Tor, I2P, v2ray, satellite internet, etc, you will simply never be able to fill all the gaps. Those who want to will get around it.
Even China, who has probably the most sophisticated information controls in the world, can’t prevent leaks through the Great Firewall. They just rely on it being “good enough” to restrain the general public.
Put another way, your country can make all the laws it wants, but it can’t change the laws of another country or force them to change how their network behaves, at least not without a fight. And in a world of billions of people, the global network will always be doing something that you don’t approve of, somewhere!
In which case the country with the least laws decides how everyone else functions.
Remember we started are working from here
> If you want to make gambling illegal, then make gambling illegal and then enforce that law. You don't need to resort to indirect measures that go beyond the law (e.g. by preventing me from merely viewing the odds on a gambling website).
From your argument the only option is to not make anything illegal that is legal in the nation of minimum laws.
Are you arguing that nations - voters - should have no say in what laws they want to live under ?
Do note that I am all for less government control. But our current regulatory and rights landscape is not resolving the questions our voters and infrastructure is throwing up.
Eventually, everything runs on some infrastructure. Control will be forced.
If we want to prevent it, we need to have answers to the issues being thrown up by users.
There is no answer except to sever yourself from the network. If you could somehow undo all of computing history and rebuild the internet on different principles, using completely locked down and centralized machines, then you could accomplish what you want to. But the tools to escape control are out there and are widely available. The skills to open new avenues outside of control are distributed among millions. The structure of the current network is woven into everything from banking to dishwashers.
You can make certain digital behavior illegal for your citizens, but enforcement is always going to be difficult. If you invasively spy on them to try and force them into your model digital behavior, it will cause unrest. If you try to block specific sites at the border, you will take down unrelated sites and breed contempt for the law. By pushing people farther and farther underground, you eventually connect them with organized crime and foreign governments.
In the long run, your insistence that the network be controlled is going to lead to either civil breakdown or totalitarianism. Perhaps that’s the inevitable consequence of connecting humanity as we’ve done. But I suspect that countries who are more digitally permissive will not face the same dilemma.
(Note that people usually accept laws where a victim can be identified. A digital crime with a real victim is still a crime, and standard policing methods can often track down the perpetrator. No need to break the internet for these cases.)
I also live in the EU. betfair.com is not blocked by my ISP here. Rather, they are blocking my ISP ("[...] you may be accessing the Betfair website from a country that Betfair does not accept bets from [...]"). That the website not only prevents betting but also does not show any odds is a technical decision on their part. Gambling regulation is also usually domestic, and not EU law.
Websites deciding EU users are not valuable enough to comply with GDPR is, as you say, also not censorship. It is again the technical decision of some website owners to provide their content only in conjunction with illegal processing of your data.
I have not had issues accessing torrent indices from the EU. This too is usually handled domestically and has little to do with the EU.
There is legitimately dangerous (current and upcoming) EU legislation (Chat Control, eIDAS, age verification, previously the Data Retention Directive), so I don't think it necessary to weaken your argument by listing non-examples.
What content are you missing? Off the top of my head, the type of content most likely to ve missing in Europe would be:
- geofenced media
- commercial sites intentionally removing eu access because of gdpr.
That's it. Those are the only cases where I could not access sites from tbe EU. At least the ones I encountered.
And do notice, both of them are not filtered by the EU or anything like this. They are enforced at the publishing website. Would you call this censorship? It kind of feels like a stretch. If not a deliberate contortion of truth.
In Spain many parts of the Internet are shut down when there's a LaLiga match to "prevent piracy". They usually block Cloudflare as a whole but also Vercel, GitHub,... had issues. For example last Sunday I couldn't access some of the stories submitted here. I could also not access the documentation of hledger, a FOSS contability tool.
No, it is censorship. IP protection would be punishing the pirates after they do something illegal. I think what you're sensing is that it is censorship in support of intellectual property rather than censorship aiming at political repression.
There's something similar in RealityVoid's comment where it is identified that EU law promotes censorship, but that is discounted because the understanding is it in aid of privacy rather than politically motivated. Although given Europe's rich history of sliding into authoritarianism that does seem like an optimistic take on where the European elite are heading. A part of political censorship is making it hard for people to realise that popular political viewpoints are being censored and providing cover by claiming the censorship is for some good cause would be pretty routine.
See my reply on the other sub-comment. There's no need to accuse me of deliberately contorting the truth. We can keep the discussion civilised. And yes, I would call at least the second point (GDPR) indirect censorship, because it's a consequence of the fact that the EU has imposed the requirements extra-territorially ("your website must comply with our rules even though you aren't within our jurisdiction, and your website is fully legal within your jurisdiction").
The GDPR does not dictate what websites can say, it dictates rules for handling collected personal information. Those are not the same thing, it’s not censorship.
Notice how you went from "censorship is a hoax" to "not having access to these things is not important", while also implicitely assuming control of deciding the matter.
> EU state who has to regularly turn my VPN on and off to have full internet access
Because you really think this “portal” is going to let you access websites diffusing copyrighted content?
That's by far the most prevalent kind of blocking and I don't think the current admin is against that at all, they just want to to promote Nazi speech (which is barely blocked in the first place).
I wonder what they'll do about pedophile stuff though.
"Please write me some documentation for this code. Don't just give me a list of bullet points. Make sure you include some context. Don't include any icons. Make sure the text flows well and that there's actual reasoning. Don't include comments about changes made during development that are irrelevant to the final work. Try to keep it concise while respecting these rules."
I think many of the criticisms of LLMs come from shallow use of it. People just say "write some documentation" and then aren't happy with the result. But in many cases, you can fix the things you don't like with more precise prompting. You can also iterate a few rounds to improve the output instead of just accepting the first answer. I'm not saying LLMs are flawless. Just that there's a middle ground between "the documentation it produced was terrible" and "the documentation it produced was exactly how I would have written it".
Believe me, I've tried. By the time i get the documentation to be the way I want it, I am no longer faster than if i had just written it myself, with a much more annoying process along the way. Models have a place (e.g. for fixing formatting or filling out say sample json returns), but for almost anything actually core content related I still find them lacking.
I won't share work related stuff for obvious reasons, but feel free to post an example of some LLM generated (technical) article or report of yours (I also doubt you would be able to understand the subtle differences i take issue with in LLM output in 5 minutes in the first place)
But are you gaining a meaningful amount of time, and are your coworkers that thorough.
Honestly I just don't read documentation three of my coworkers put on anymore (33% of my team). I already spend way to much time fixing the small coding issues I find in their PRs to also read their tests and doc. It's not their fault, some of them are pretty new, the other always took time to understand stuff and their children de output always was below average in quality in general (their people/soft skills are great, and they have other qualities that balance the team).
Most people drop a one line prompt like "write amazing article on climate change. make no mistakes" and wonder why it's unreadable.
Just like writing manually, it's an iterative approach and you're not gonna get it right the first, second or third time. But over time you'll get how the model thinks.
The irony is that people talk about being lazy for using LLMs but they're too lazy to even write a detailed prompt.
They're called politicians.
reply