You can, but it's more than a warning. VeraCrypt has a signed kernel driver, which has higher requirements. You'll need to boot into a special Windows mode and disable Driver Signature Enforcement.
Secure boot is an anti-feature in most of the landscape anyway. Sure, if you have a distribution under your control or influence it could theoretically be a benefit. But you need to not be stupid or naive here.
You can also roll you own encryption if you are not stupid and naive. Probably a question of self-reflection.
Not the OP you responded too, but what the hell! I have not really used windows in a while but that's absurd. That text is massive just for an unsigned driver.
wow, didn't know about this, i developed some drivers and had this test mode enabled to debug some aspects of it, but now it is almost unusable with this on screen.
What about Valve itself? They have ~350 employees. They make Steam, SteamOS, Steam Deck, Steam Machine, Steam Frame, the Source engine, and run four actively successful live service games: CS2, Dota2, TF2, Deadlock.
Last I've heard Valve makes use of a lot of contractors however. So the number of people working on their projects is a bit higher than their employee count suggests. Anyone's guess how many though.
I know they're sponsoring a bunch of ARM and Linux projects as well.
The small size of Valve is simultaneously mind boggling but also not, given its very intentional independence. I would have to imagine that they must contract out or have partners at least for their hardware relationships if not for their massively multiplayer online games. At just 350 people that's enough annual revenue to make everyone there a millionaire several times over. Simultaneously plausible but mind boggling.
They contract out all the time, they've admitted to it in lots of interviews. So I think through the amount of contracting they're able to keep their core hires down.
Yeah but Valve is not publicly traded, so that comparison is of course totally unfair! /s
Having skilled and happy employees that aren't constantly changing and do not spend all of their time on ways to fuck over customers and chase trends is simply impossible. Releasing a piece of hardware and leaving it open for customers to do with what they want? Linux? Not hiring people the second line goes up and then immediately firing them when line stagnates? Preposterous.
Hardcore gamers were the reason behind a whole new chip type being introduced - the GPU. This was also when this market was a lot smaller. I don’t see this changing. The market will continue rewarding chips that cater to it. It is absolutely big enough to sustain several different completely bespoke chip types, regardless of what non-gamers are doing.
x86 will lose to ARM/RISC in gaming only if those chips provide a better gaming experience.
What are you talking about? The top 3 most played games on Steam are all “involuntary pvp” games - Counter-Strike, Dota 2, PUBG. These are all games with a lot of age on them as well.
None of them are easy for new players, with Dota 2 in particular requiring at least 2000 hours to have a chance of not being horrible at the game. Yet it isn’t causing any fall off. Instead it is binding people’s lives to these games, achieving retention rates that easier games can only dream of.
> There are likely to be no devices running iOS 16
My iPhone X is stuck on iOS 16 with no way to upgrade.
However, the phone is still working well. Despite being in daily use for 8 years it still has 81% battery capacity, has never been dropped, has a great OLED screen, can record 4K@60 video. It is far more responsive than a brand new 2025 $200 Android phone from e.g. Xiaomi. It still gets security patches from Apple. The only real shortcoming compared to a modern iPhone is the low light camera performance. That and some app developers don't support iOS 16 anymore, so e.g. I can't use the ChatGPT app and have to use it via the browser, but the Gemini app works fine.
These two statements have a very different impact:
1. I love product X and I won't get paid if you buy it too.
2. I love product X and I will get paid if you buy it too.
Money motivates people to claim they love a product or that a product is good, even if not true. It's a problem that has plagued the internet for decades.
Influence and power are far more intoxicating currencies than affiliate revenue.
And if someone complained "you're just publishing this helpful thing to become more influential in [community]," well, at some point we need to acknowledge incentives drive all behavior in one way or another.
Refusing the incentive doesn't make one per se virtuous.
I understand the need to disclose sponsored content. Or if the manufacturer had veto-power or any say in the content.
I even understand that it is good to tell if the product was given for free or the trip was paid, even when they had no say in the content.
But I don't understand why anyone would need "I use affiliate links" caveats. This is useless info wasting space and reading time akin to "this website displays ads in order to stay alive". What does writing this (otherwise observable facts) actually accomplishes? What benefits does it bring?
What is the difference between those scenarios and affiliate links? They are literally the same to me: kickbacks. And I agree they all are allowed, but should be disclosed. Why do you consider affiliate links an exception to that rule?
The difference is in the:
1. purpose of the mention.
2. Influence on the opinion.
Was it solely because the manufacturer gave sponsor money or was it because the writer is sharing his own personal opinions (and having affiliate links did not change the verdict)?
I don't see a problem people getting financially rewarded for helping people. Actually, I see as a positive. Nothing to be ashamed about, nothing to separately disclose.
In a similar vein as posting helpful videos on youtube/tiktok and not separately disclosing "when my content does well, I receive a cut from google/tiktok". Duuh.
3. I love product, but don't have an incentive to spend my time and sharing my experience for nothing.
It's not like this is an AI slop with no valuable unique information with the sole point of SEOing into visitors clicking on links.
The guy made his research, chose the best (not the most expensive, in order to maximize price) components and shared direct links (thus also making it easier for readers, who don't have only names that they would have to google themselves).
I see no problem in that so much so that I wouldn't even require a separate "I use affiliate links" caveats. This is useless info akin to "this website displays ads in order to be alive".
I used to be an Amazon affiliate, myself. I made a small amount of money with that program, by giving people Amazon links (with my affiliate tag) when I wanted to introduce an example of a particular product in a discussion where I thought it would be helpful.
I am no longer an Amazon affiliate. I no longer make any money with that program. I still give people Amazon links when I want to introduce an example of a particular product where I think it will be helpful.
Nothing has changed about the way I write or recommend gear, except for the present-day absence of an affiliate link. It was the same before I was an affiliate, it was the same while I was an affiliate, and it remains the same now that I am no longer an affiliate.
---
"So why Amazon links when you could just link to the manufacturer's page instead," you may be asking?
That answer is simple: Because Amazon is consistent, accessible, and includes pricing.
Manufacturers' web pages too often have a profound tendency to be absolutely awful: It's a spectacle of moving images and flashing lights, noisemakers, pop-ups and fucking "SPIN THE WHEEL FOR A PRIZE!!!!" bullshit instead of -- you know -- information.
But all a person really needs as a jumping-off point is basic information. A description, some photos, and a realistic price is a good start.
That latter set is really all that Amazon provides. And that kind of simplicity is useful to me.
My ultimate motivation when I link a product is to be helpful to others. Affiliate or not, linking to Amazon furthers that goal of mine in ways that sending clicks to some Web analog of the Vegas Strip cannot ever accomplish.
---
"So if you're so [euphemism], then why aren't you an affiliate anymore," you may wish to ask next.
That answer is also easy: Several years ago, Amazon demanded that I submit of all of my social media information in order to maintain participation in the program. I was not OK with doing this, so I ignored that demand. They subsequently kicked me out.
reply