OK, I stand corrected on antibiotics vs anabiotics/whatever they're illegally producing but it doesn't change in any way my point - black market drugs are unregulated, and untested by the proper authorities, and as such unsafe, regardless of what they are, and they were developed at great cost by a different company who would like to recoup their cost legally by selling what they developed legally, etc... so sure, nitpick all you like.
My first point stands
Actually, the anabolic steroids are legally produced, they're either prescribed for off-label uses or obtained illegally, but neither of those are the fault of the companies legally producing them. Their illegal use (again, not the fault of the manufacturer) is against the rules of basically every professional athletic association in the world, but that's between the athletes and the associations, not the associations and the drug companies. If your point stands it's not supported by this argument.
Bossland is using private methods of access explicitly against the ToS to give game players access to more than blizzard gave those players rights or access to, and are charging these players for this access. Blizzard's regular customers are being impacted and receiving a worse experience, bossland is making a profit off blizzard's intellectual property.
Did you even google "Watchover Tyrant" to see what it actually does or how it works? It's an overlay, it reads from the RAM used by the game on the user's local system and draws a graphical overlay on top of the game; it doesn't control the player or enhance the player's health, armor, or weapons in any way. It's literally just a graphical overlay. It doesn't use Blizzard's servers in any way, nor does it use "private methods of access", it simply reads (and doesn't write) game RAM. It's questionable whether this violates the ToS in any way, as Overwatch and WoW have the same ToS and similar add-ons for WoW exist with Blizzard's blessing. Where Blizzard draws the line is writing to game RAM, injecting mouse or keyboard commands into the game (though some macro add-ons exist, which do this with Blizzard's blessing) or communicating with the game servers directly. Even if it is, in fact, a ToS violation, that's not a legal or civil matter and Blizzard's recourse is to terminate the offending account(s). Again, if your point does, in fact, stand, it is not supported by this argument.
They hacked into blizzard's code, and use a modified version of it to generate an overlay showing the intentionally hidden information. So yes, they've broken into overwatch. Their customers of course pay for their original copy of the game, and then pay bossland to hack it for them. Their resulting versions ruin the game for legal customers, which means that prospective legal customers will be less likely to purchase it. So yes, they have made money off blizzard's back that has resulted in blizzard losing money, the basic premise that restitution addresses.
They didn't touch Blizzard's code, they used a read-only debugger (of sorts) to determine where the game stores various bits of data in order to extract them to enable the generation of a graphical overlay layer. Bossland customers are still legal customers of Blizzard's service, as well; Blizzard has every right to terminate their accounts for violating the ToS, but there is no legal or civil recourse to be had. In fact, Blizzard has done so already; they've already enabled detection of this cheat overlay and implemented auto-bans for its use, so it is no longer an issue.
Still failing to actually add anything pertinent to the discussion or make much sense here mate.... but lets keep going:
Well, at least you recognize it. Oh, wait, you're talking about me, aren't you? Hey, well, I've done my research and know what is actually being discussed here while you, well... clearly, you have not.
Any debate between, for example, a man and his wife, is a very poor debate? Say, debating over what should be had for dinner, or which car to buy (and why).
That said, I understand that there are several possible motives you may have had for posting and addressed this (though indirectly) in my reply. To clarify, my intent was not to deter you from watching (that's accomplished by my current workload effectively preventing me from putting forth the effort to continue the debate at this time).
Black market antibiotics are made without regulation, and are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic resistance.
Assuming they were making good clean helpful drugs, then they aren't like Bossland, who aren't helping.
I said anabolics, as in steroids, not antibiotics. And they're helping cheaters cheat, which is exactly what Bossland is doing.
It's like blizzard built a carpark, charged everyone $5 to park there, then some unaffiliated company sets up out front, stops people driving in, and offers them "easy parking service" for $10, pockets the money, drives round back, in through a no-public-access service entrance, then starts parking the cars wherever they like, blocking other genuine customers parking.
In your example, you've got someone standing outside the parking garage and collecting money in the course of depriving Blizzard of sales while, at the same time, depriving Blizzard of resources they build and maintain (parking spaces). While Bossland does charge for their software, said software does not allow access to Blizzard's services without paying (Blizzard) for them, nor does it deprive "legitimate" (defined by me as someone who pays for access, thereby including users of Bossland's software; if you have another definition, let's hear it) users of access.
Damn straight blizzard will march out front, tell them to take off, and that if they stop breaking the lock on the private entrance and bringing cars in illegally, oh, and all that money you've been collecting, taking out of our pocket, we want restitution for that too.
They're breaking no locks, users of Bossland's software pay Blizzard for access and connect to Blizzard's servers using Blizzard's software, the same way everyone else does. They're not taking money out of Blizzard's pockets, as Blizzard is still getting paid. So there's no restitution to be had, no matter how bad Blizzard (and you) may want there to be.
See what I did there?
I sure do, but I'm sure you'll see it differently.
I pointed out gaping holes in your argument.
No, you really didn't.
Now compare bossland to the 'unaffiliated company' profiting off blizzard's infrastructure.
You mean like a 3rd-party computer repair shop or car mechanic? Those businesses actually do deprive OEM repair facilities of sales, yet they're completely legal. Meanwhile, Bossland is actually not depriving Blizzard of anything... so...
See everyone else's point yet?
Funny you should ask, I was just in the middle of answering. No.
It is not a button linking to the site, nor an external link, nor a call to action direxting the customer to purchase. It's a call to action for the user to enter thier email address, which Spotify uses as a username and would be collecting anyway in the course of creating the user's account, even through an in-app purchase. In other words, no you're not right, because the violation is not clear.
Perhaps you should read it, then. Google is your friend; I don't have time to do research for, or argue with, people who display (and admit to) wilful ignorance.
Well, I don't mind too much. I mean, this *IS* a public forum after all, so we can hardly complain if others give comments, thus.;-)
Agreed. I've got a bit of a head cold and that's made me somewhat irritable; I was a bit out of line in that reply. That's one of the reasons I haven't given a proper reply yet to your last post.
Anyway, was nice talking with you. Hope we can keep the same up if there's a topic we REALLY strongly disagree at.;-p
I don't see why that would be a problem; I have no issue being uncivil with someone who is first uncivil with me, but I limit my incivility thusly. I don't think we'll have a problem.:)
Okay, I can go with that. How often does, for example, the IOC sue drug companies?
Full disclosure: Never played Overwatch, I prefer much more casual games, though I do get something of a kick out of watching others (of any skill level; I often find myself as much in awe of pepoles' mistakes in games as I do their successes) play these types of games. That said, also never watched Overwatch.
I take that back... after having read through those posts once more it seems we merely have an interested observer. I've got a fair bit going on at the moment and can't really take in all of your reply, so I'll come back to it when things slow down (unless I forget).
I'm sure the person I'm debating can stand for themselves. As such, I will rather save my mental capacity for the code I am working on writing, and for replying to the person with whom I am debating and will not engage your line of argument. That said, thank you for the interest; please, feel free to follow along. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure where my argument is going; I can't see that many moves into the future and what is being debated here is philosophy, rather than fact.
And this is why we can't have nice things... 4 replies from a "debate moderator" of sorts where no moderation is required. But, then, it's a public forum, I suppose that is to be expected.
In the Franklin case, they had not placed a warning on the package, as their product had a blunt tip while competing products were sharp; the warnings on competing products were relating to the sharpness of the tip.
Franklin was as much at fault for that incident as the user who threw it too hard and in the direction of an innocent little girl. The response was not only the confidential and sealed settlement, but also a complete recall of the product.
I suppose you'll tell me you were still right because there was no finding of guilt nor admission of wrongdoing right? Because they settled.
It didn't go to trial. If it had, they most certainly would have been found (partially) at fault for not having a proper warning on the product or its packaging. I implore you to find an example of a product with a warning where the manufacturer or seller was found liable for use of the product in a manner inconsistent with the warning.
Yes, when someone warns you not to do something, they're absolved of all responsibility for your actions should you deliberately ignore their warning.
Completely different! Cracks for Windows activation allow people to use Windows without paying for it; people using the cheat still have to buy Overwatch and pay Blizzard for access to their servers. This is more akin to writing software that makes certain Windows tasks easier, something a good many companies make an absolute killing doing, perfectly legally.
You aren't absolved of responsibility just because you stuck a warning on something.
Okay, let's look at your examples; you've given several.
Lawn darts were banned because no amount of disclaimers was stopping people from hurting eachother with them.
Right, a law preventing their manufacture and sale. Nobody was ever sued to stop making or selling them. I do recall that there was a suit over the lack of a warning at one point, thus the warning; the warning didn't work but the manufacturers and sellers were absolved of responsibility prior to the ban.
Properly installed in-car entertainment systems will no longer play video on a screen facing the driver because no amount of warnings and disclaimers stopped people from watching movies while driving.
Right, another legal requirement. Nobody has ever been successfully sued because their in-car entertainment system lacked this functionality. It's been tried and the user, not the manufacturer, was found responsible.
Even this idiot had to bring in a portable DVD player to watch harry potter because his Tesla wouldn't play it on one of its screens for him.
So, then, you're saying that there should be a law requiring portable DVD players to detect that they're in a moving vehicle and in view of the driver, and disable themselves in this case? Or... what's your point?
We have a long history of understanding that there are limits to what you can warn against. And some products or features are just to tempting and too dangerous to misuse to be worth the benefit.
And those products get banned from manufacture or sale, while the manufacturers (provided they gave ample warning, as in Tesla's case, as well as both examples you provided) are absolved of responsibility for the stupidity of the users.
Nothing stopping you.
I meant people like this Tesla driver (too late for him, but not for others like him) and, perhaps, yourself.
Oh wait... your bathroom if its even reasonably modern probably has GFCI outlets that will trip if your hair dryer drops into the tub. Modern building codes require them; you know rather than just prattling on about personal responsibility; and pointing at the disclaimer in the hair dryer manual as being sufficient.
Actually, only if within a certain distance of a source of water. The outlet on the wall by me sink is GFCI protected, the outlet on the wall across from the toilet it not (and no, it's not just a standard chained into the GFCI circuit; it's not GFCI protected and it is code compliant. Additionally, the relevant code was, as with your other examples, not the result of the manufacturer (of the hair dryer, outlet, or any other appliance) being responsible for the end user's actions despite warnings and common sense.
So, back to your stated point:
You aren't absolved of responsibility just because you stuck a warning on something.
You've failed to provide a single point for this statement, because the statement is flat out false.
That people ignore warnings is a responsibility problem. The responsibility of the person, not of the manufacturer whose warning is being ignored. I wish more people would ignore the "Do not use in shower" warning on their hair dryers; perhaps then we wouldn't be having this stupid ass argument.
Drivers using it have 50% fewer accidents than drivers not using it. How is that a bad thing? I wouldn't use it, personally, as I quite enjoy driving, but... how is it a bad thing?
Simple: it's only a bad thing if you're dumb enough to ignore the warning ti car gives you every single time you drive with it. In a day and age where the common excuse is "the computer told me, so I trusted it", you can't use "I didn't believe the computer" as an excuse; and the computer says "pay attention".
This. Musk actually says the system can cause accidents; just half as often as a human driver (if the human driver is there, paying attention, to catch the computer's mistakes).
I'm not a Tesla fan, personally; I don't own one, and I never will, I'm an apartment dweller and have no option for reliably charging one. I literally have no dog in this race, yet this guy (not you, the one you and I are both arguing with) seems to think I'm defending Tesla for some personal reason. Tesla is not in the wrong here, even though there is a known correlation between people with enough money to buy a $130k vehicle and a complete lack of personal responsibility; they know they can just buy another one so they don't really care. That's not Tesla's fault, nor is it their problem.
You are liable for your own actions and, unless Tesla told you explicitly that you could take a nap, eat lunch, jack off, or whatever else, with autopilot engaged, they're not liable if you do those things.
You get it. I get it. Why is is so hard for everyone else?
Oh, well... we'll let the courts sort it out and when the courts side with Tesla this guy will stumble off with his tail between his legs.
See? This is why credentials are important. We could have avoided this whole back-and-forth if you'd just described your experience at the start (and not even in this much detail).
I've watched enough of Louis Rossmann's videos that I should have expected Apple's own documentation to be incorrect or, at the very least, incomplete.
I stand corrected and kindly thank you for the information.
My guess is that you read "signature" in there and something about a cert, and assumed that actually applied to the encryption used on the kernel binary itself rather than the signature for it.
No, I read the following, on page 5, under the heading "Secure boot chain":
The
Boot ROM code contains the Apple Root CA public key, which is used to verify that the
Low-Level Bootloader (LLB) is signed by Apple before allowing it to load. This is the first
step in the chain of trust where each step ensures that the next is signed by Apple.
When the LLB finishes its tasks, it verifies and runs the next-stage bootloader, iBoot,
which in turn verifies and runs the iOS kernel.
Yes, that does specifically mention the signature; no, it does not mention the encryption used, if any, on the various components of the boot chain. The remainder of the document does make many mentions of the use of AES, on the data partition, for secure communications, in the secure enclave for storing fingerprint hashes, for ApplePay, but no mention of its use anywhere in the boot process.
Perhaps you do need to read the reference? You don't seem to be as familiar with the boot process as you think.
Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard... Quality products...
They do have recourse, though: ban the accounts. That's the point of the ToS.
And it's already proven effective against Watchover Tyrant.
OK, I stand corrected on antibiotics vs anabiotics/whatever they're illegally producing but it doesn't change in any way my point - black market drugs are unregulated, and untested by the proper authorities, and as such unsafe, regardless of what they are, and they were developed at great cost by a different company who would like to recoup their cost legally by selling what they developed legally, etc... so sure, nitpick all you like.
My first point stands
Actually, the anabolic steroids are legally produced, they're either prescribed for off-label uses or obtained illegally, but neither of those are the fault of the companies legally producing them. Their illegal use (again, not the fault of the manufacturer) is against the rules of basically every professional athletic association in the world, but that's between the athletes and the associations, not the associations and the drug companies. If your point stands it's not supported by this argument.
Bossland is using private methods of access explicitly against the ToS to give game players access to more than blizzard gave those players rights or access to, and are charging these players for this access. Blizzard's regular customers are being impacted and receiving a worse experience, bossland is making a profit off blizzard's intellectual property.
Did you even google "Watchover Tyrant" to see what it actually does or how it works? It's an overlay, it reads from the RAM used by the game on the user's local system and draws a graphical overlay on top of the game; it doesn't control the player or enhance the player's health, armor, or weapons in any way. It's literally just a graphical overlay. It doesn't use Blizzard's servers in any way, nor does it use "private methods of access", it simply reads (and doesn't write) game RAM. It's questionable whether this violates the ToS in any way, as Overwatch and WoW have the same ToS and similar add-ons for WoW exist with Blizzard's blessing. Where Blizzard draws the line is writing to game RAM, injecting mouse or keyboard commands into the game (though some macro add-ons exist, which do this with Blizzard's blessing) or communicating with the game servers directly. Even if it is, in fact, a ToS violation, that's not a legal or civil matter and Blizzard's recourse is to terminate the offending account(s). Again, if your point does, in fact, stand, it is not supported by this argument.
They hacked into blizzard's code, and use a modified version of it to generate an overlay showing the intentionally hidden information. So yes, they've broken into overwatch. Their customers of course pay for their original copy of the game, and then pay bossland to hack it for them. Their resulting versions ruin the game for legal customers, which means that prospective legal customers will be less likely to purchase it. So yes, they have made money off blizzard's back that has resulted in blizzard losing money, the basic premise that restitution addresses.
They didn't touch Blizzard's code, they used a read-only debugger (of sorts) to determine where the game stores various bits of data in order to extract them to enable the generation of a graphical overlay layer. Bossland customers are still legal customers of Blizzard's service, as well; Blizzard has every right to terminate their accounts for violating the ToS, but there is no legal or civil recourse to be had. In fact, Blizzard has done so already; they've already enabled detection of this cheat overlay and implemented auto-bans for its use, so it is no longer an issue.
Still failing to actually add anything pertinent to the discussion or make much sense here mate.... but lets keep going: Well, at least you recognize it. Oh, wait, you're talking about me, aren't you? Hey, well, I've done my research and know what is actually being discussed here while you, well... clearly, you have not.
OK, I guess
Any debate between, for example, a man and his wife, is a very poor debate? Say, debating over what should be had for dinner, or which car to buy (and why).
That said, I understand that there are several possible motives you may have had for posting and addressed this (though indirectly) in my reply. To clarify, my intent was not to deter you from watching (that's accomplished by my current workload effectively preventing me from putting forth the effort to continue the debate at this time).
Black market antibiotics are made without regulation, and are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic resistance.
Assuming they were making good clean helpful drugs, then they aren't like Bossland, who aren't helping.
I said anabolics, as in steroids, not antibiotics. And they're helping cheaters cheat, which is exactly what Bossland is doing.
It's like blizzard built a carpark, charged everyone $5 to park there, then some unaffiliated company sets up out front, stops people driving in, and offers them "easy parking service" for $10, pockets the money, drives round back, in through a no-public-access service entrance, then starts parking the cars wherever they like, blocking other genuine customers parking.
In your example, you've got someone standing outside the parking garage and collecting money in the course of depriving Blizzard of sales while, at the same time, depriving Blizzard of resources they build and maintain (parking spaces). While Bossland does charge for their software, said software does not allow access to Blizzard's services without paying (Blizzard) for them, nor does it deprive "legitimate" (defined by me as someone who pays for access, thereby including users of Bossland's software; if you have another definition, let's hear it) users of access.
Damn straight blizzard will march out front, tell them to take off, and that if they stop breaking the lock on the private entrance and bringing cars in illegally, oh, and all that money you've been collecting, taking out of our pocket, we want restitution for that too.
They're breaking no locks, users of Bossland's software pay Blizzard for access and connect to Blizzard's servers using Blizzard's software, the same way everyone else does. They're not taking money out of Blizzard's pockets, as Blizzard is still getting paid. So there's no restitution to be had, no matter how bad Blizzard (and you) may want there to be.
See what I did there?
I sure do, but I'm sure you'll see it differently.
I pointed out gaping holes in your argument.
No, you really didn't.
Now compare bossland to the 'unaffiliated company' profiting off blizzard's infrastructure.
You mean like a 3rd-party computer repair shop or car mechanic? Those businesses actually do deprive OEM repair facilities of sales, yet they're completely legal. Meanwhile, Bossland is actually not depriving Blizzard of anything... so...
See everyone else's point yet?
Funny you should ask, I was just in the middle of answering. No.
It is not a button linking to the site, nor an external link, nor a call to action direxting the customer to purchase. It's a call to action for the user to enter thier email address, which Spotify uses as a username and would be collecting anyway in the course of creating the user's account, even through an in-app purchase. In other words, no you're not right, because the violation is not clear.
I don't know what the rule specifically says
Perhaps you should read it, then. Google is your friend; I don't have time to do research for, or argue with, people who display (and admit to) wilful ignorance.
Well, I don't mind too much. I mean, this *IS* a public forum after all, so we can hardly complain if others give comments, thus. ;-)
Agreed. I've got a bit of a head cold and that's made me somewhat irritable; I was a bit out of line in that reply. That's one of the reasons I haven't given a proper reply yet to your last post.
Anyway, was nice talking with you. Hope we can keep the same up if there's a topic we REALLY strongly disagree at. ;-p
I don't see why that would be a problem; I have no issue being uncivil with someone who is first uncivil with me, but I limit my incivility thusly. I don't think we'll have a problem. :)
The difference is that software companies make a bunch of good and totally legit stuff.
See what I did there? In case you didn't: I pointed out the gaping hold in your argument.
Now, compare Bossland to the drug company making the black-market anabolics. See my point yet?
Okay, I can go with that. How often does, for example, the IOC sue drug companies?
Full disclosure: Never played Overwatch, I prefer much more casual games, though I do get something of a kick out of watching others (of any skill level; I often find myself as much in awe of pepoles' mistakes in games as I do their successes) play these types of games. That said, also never watched Overwatch.
I take that back... after having read through those posts once more it seems we merely have an interested observer. I've got a fair bit going on at the moment and can't really take in all of your reply, so I'll come back to it when things slow down (unless I forget).
I'm sure the person I'm debating can stand for themselves. As such, I will rather save my mental capacity for the code I am working on writing, and for replying to the person with whom I am debating and will not engage your line of argument. That said, thank you for the interest; please, feel free to follow along. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure where my argument is going; I can't see that many moves into the future and what is being debated here is philosophy, rather than fact.
And this is why we can't have nice things... 4 replies from a "debate moderator" of sorts where no moderation is required. But, then, it's a public forum, I suppose that is to be expected.
Jones v. Franklin Sporting Goods
In the Franklin case, they had not placed a warning on the package, as their product had a blunt tip while competing products were sharp; the warnings on competing products were relating to the sharpness of the tip.
Franklin was as much at fault for that incident as the user who threw it too hard and in the direction of an innocent little girl. The response was not only the confidential and sealed settlement, but also a complete recall of the product.
I suppose you'll tell me you were still right because there was no finding of guilt nor admission of wrongdoing right? Because they settled.
It didn't go to trial. If it had, they most certainly would have been found (partially) at fault for not having a proper warning on the product or its packaging. I implore you to find an example of a product with a warning where the manufacturer or seller was found liable for use of the product in a manner inconsistent with the warning.
Yes, when someone warns you not to do something, they're absolved of all responsibility for your actions should you deliberately ignore their warning.
I said check, not mate.
they'd have to go to a German court and have the case judged against german laws... which don't include DCMA...
The EU signed WIPO, which bundles the DMCA. Germany is part of the EU. Try again.
Completely different! Cracks for Windows activation allow people to use Windows without paying for it; people using the cheat still have to buy Overwatch and pay Blizzard for access to their servers. This is more akin to writing software that makes certain Windows tasks easier, something a good many companies make an absolute killing doing, perfectly legally.
You aren't absolved of responsibility just because you stuck a warning on something.
Okay, let's look at your examples; you've given several.
Lawn darts were banned because no amount of disclaimers was stopping people from hurting eachother with them.
Right, a law preventing their manufacture and sale. Nobody was ever sued to stop making or selling them. I do recall that there was a suit over the lack of a warning at one point, thus the warning; the warning didn't work but the manufacturers and sellers were absolved of responsibility prior to the ban.
Properly installed in-car entertainment systems will no longer play video on a screen facing the driver because no amount of warnings and disclaimers stopped people from watching movies while driving.
Right, another legal requirement. Nobody has ever been successfully sued because their in-car entertainment system lacked this functionality. It's been tried and the user, not the manufacturer, was found responsible.
Even this idiot had to bring in a portable DVD player to watch harry potter because his Tesla wouldn't play it on one of its screens for him.
So, then, you're saying that there should be a law requiring portable DVD players to detect that they're in a moving vehicle and in view of the driver, and disable themselves in this case? Or... what's your point?
We have a long history of understanding that there are limits to what you can warn against. And some products or features are just to tempting and too dangerous to misuse to be worth the benefit.
And those products get banned from manufacture or sale, while the manufacturers (provided they gave ample warning, as in Tesla's case, as well as both examples you provided) are absolved of responsibility for the stupidity of the users.
Nothing stopping you.
I meant people like this Tesla driver (too late for him, but not for others like him) and, perhaps, yourself.
Oh wait... your bathroom if its even reasonably modern probably has GFCI outlets that will trip if your hair dryer drops into the tub. Modern building codes require them; you know rather than just prattling on about personal responsibility; and pointing at the disclaimer in the hair dryer manual as being sufficient.
Actually, only if within a certain distance of a source of water. The outlet on the wall by me sink is GFCI protected, the outlet on the wall across from the toilet it not (and no, it's not just a standard chained into the GFCI circuit; it's not GFCI protected and it is code compliant. Additionally, the relevant code was, as with your other examples, not the result of the manufacturer (of the hair dryer, outlet, or any other appliance) being responsible for the end user's actions despite warnings and common sense.
So, back to your stated point:
You aren't absolved of responsibility just because you stuck a warning on something.
You've failed to provide a single point for this statement, because the statement is flat out false.
That people ignore warnings is a responsibility problem. The responsibility of the person, not of the manufacturer whose warning is being ignored. I wish more people would ignore the "Do not use in shower" warning on their hair dryers; perhaps then we wouldn't be having this stupid ass argument.
Drivers using it have 50% fewer accidents than drivers not using it. How is that a bad thing? I wouldn't use it, personally, as I quite enjoy driving, but... how is it a bad thing?
Simple: it's only a bad thing if you're dumb enough to ignore the warning ti car gives you every single time you drive with it. In a day and age where the common excuse is "the computer told me, so I trusted it", you can't use "I didn't believe the computer" as an excuse; and the computer says "pay attention".
This. Musk actually says the system can cause accidents; just half as often as a human driver (if the human driver is there, paying attention, to catch the computer's mistakes).
I'm not a Tesla fan, personally; I don't own one, and I never will, I'm an apartment dweller and have no option for reliably charging one. I literally have no dog in this race, yet this guy (not you, the one you and I are both arguing with) seems to think I'm defending Tesla for some personal reason. Tesla is not in the wrong here, even though there is a known correlation between people with enough money to buy a $130k vehicle and a complete lack of personal responsibility; they know they can just buy another one so they don't really care. That's not Tesla's fault, nor is it their problem.
You are liable for your own actions and, unless Tesla told you explicitly that you could take a nap, eat lunch, jack off, or whatever else, with autopilot engaged, they're not liable if you do those things.
You get it. I get it. Why is is so hard for everyone else?
Oh, well... we'll let the courts sort it out and when the courts side with Tesla this guy will stumble off with his tail between his legs.
Prime example of missing the point...
See? This is why credentials are important. We could have avoided this whole back-and-forth if you'd just described your experience at the start (and not even in this much detail).
I've watched enough of Louis Rossmann's videos that I should have expected Apple's own documentation to be incorrect or, at the very least, incomplete.
I stand corrected and kindly thank you for the information.
My guess is that you read "signature" in there and something about a cert, and assumed that actually applied to the encryption used on the kernel binary itself rather than the signature for it.
No, I read the following, on page 5, under the heading "Secure boot chain":
The Boot ROM code contains the Apple Root CA public key, which is used to verify that the Low-Level Bootloader (LLB) is signed by Apple before allowing it to load. This is the first step in the chain of trust where each step ensures that the next is signed by Apple. When the LLB finishes its tasks, it verifies and runs the next-stage bootloader, iBoot, which in turn verifies and runs the iOS kernel.
Yes, that does specifically mention the signature; no, it does not mention the encryption used, if any, on the various components of the boot chain. The remainder of the document does make many mentions of the use of AES, on the data partition, for secure communications, in the secure enclave for storing fingerprint hashes, for ApplePay, but no mention of its use anywhere in the boot process.
Perhaps you do need to read the reference? You don't seem to be as familiar with the boot process as you think.
That's not the fault of the car manufacturer.
Personal. Fucking. Responsibility.
It's a car, a multi-ton rolling death machine. Paying attention behind the wheel should be the default. Period.