This is extremely bad logic. The technology of enforcing trusted software is without inherent value good or ill depending entirely on expected usage. Anything that is substantially open will be used according to the values of its users not according to your values so we ought instead to consider their values not yours.

Suppose you wanted to identify potential agitators by scanning all communication for indications in a fascist state one could require this technology in all trusted environments and require such an environment to bank, connect to an ISP, or use Netflix.

One could even imagine a completely benign usage which only identified actual wrong doing alongside another which profiled based almost entirely on anti regime sentiment or reasonable discontent.

The good users would argue that the only problem with the technology is its misuse but without the underlying technology such misuse is impossible.

One can imagine two entirely different parallel universes one in which a few great powers went the wrong way in part enabled by trusted computing and the pervasive surveillance enabled by the capability of AI to do the massive and boring task of analyzing a massive glut of ordinary behaviour and communication + tech and law to ensure said surveillance is carried out.

Even those not misusing the tech may find themselves worse off in such a world.

Why again should we trust this technology just because you are a good person?

I couldn't find ready stats on what percentage of displays are 60 hz but outside of gaming and high end machines I suspect 60 hz is still the majority of of machines used by actual users meaning we should evaluate the latency as it is observed by most users.

Actually multiple including Phoenix a re-implementation, running an x wm under Wayland via Wayback in addition to xlibre

Gnome?

There is no Wayland to run on top of as its a standard to implement rather than a server to talk to.

Because destruction of property is when you destroy property and windows can be reinstalled and even preserve the prior installations files.

Did this ever effect real users?

Arguably yes. By preventing entire classes of attack real users are never exposed to certain risks in the first place. If it were possible it would be abused at some rate (even if that rate were low).

It's not that trusted computing is inherently bad. I actually think it's a very good thing. The problem is that the manufacturer maintains control of the keys when they sell you a device.

Imagine selling someone a house that had smart locks but not turning over control of the locks to the new "owner". And every time the "owner" wants to add a new guest to the lock you insist on "reviewing" the guest before agreeing to add him. You insist that this is important for "security" because otherwise the "owner" might throw a party or invite a drug dealer over or something else you don't approve of. But don't worry, you are protecting the "owner" from malicious third parties hiding in plain sight. You run thorough background checks on all applicants after all!

I get your point, but I think your example doesn't make sense. I can get drugs delivered to a psych ward if I'd want that. Dealers don't need a key.

Yes. See attacks like Pegasus.

They used Windows XP when it was a security nightmare and many used it long after EOL. I just talked to someone whose had 4 bank cards compromised in as many months who is almost certainly doing something wrong.

I'm talking about people's feelings. People can feel like a Masterlock padlock is secure even if it may be trivial to get past.

They hold both that people whose citizenship depends on birthright citizenship are not in fact citizens and that naturalized citizens can be denaturalized either for disloyalty or based on some sham pretext. They also see people getting benefits as leaches worthy of targeting.

Also naturalized and birthright citizens are far more likely than others to associate or live with others of less legal status.

Naturalized and birthright citizens quality for benefits and they and their families are at risk.

If they are allowed to detain and deport without any due process as they have asserted anyone not white is at risk.

The DHS official social media presence shared a picture of an island paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations.

This is the number of non-whites not the number of immigrants in even the most ridiculous estimates.

Perhaps start by defunding any projects by institutions that insist on protecting fraudsters especially in the soft sciences. There is a lot of valuable hard science that IS real and has better standards.

But that would defund all of them. Plenty of fraud at 'top' institutions like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford etc...

If funding depended on firing former fraudsters and incompetents they would find the will to fire them

I don't think they would. They'd rather stage riots and try to unseat the government than change.