Yep, though you can mitigate it a little bit in various ways. For one weird example, I keep my main user Home folder on my NAS and mount it via iSCSI. Mostly that's for data integrity/size/backup purposes, but it does also make it free to snapshot before trying out a system upgrade. If I hate it I can rollback my entire set of user data along with the OS.
Though amongst many other wonderful things lost in the mysts of Mac history I still desperately miss NetBoot/NetInstall and ultra easy clone/boot with something like CCC and TDM. It's so fucking miserable now in comparison to do reinstalls/testing/restores.
>They (and other elements of our healthcare industry) already make a lot more than that on treating the side effects of widespread obesity.
This raises a thought I hadn't considered before: given how much money gets made off of obese people, it wouldn't be surprising if there would be significant commercial interests that would want to try to actively hamper anything that'd systematically reduce the overall population percentage of obesity. We've seen plenty of examples in the past (and ongoing) of perverse incentives. In turn, I wonder if it's actually a small silver lining that the drugs are so wildly profitable for the short term, in that the producers are incentivized to lobby against any efforts to legally hobble them. And then in the longer term it will all go off patent.
You also have to remember that not everything is a conspiracy.
Just because someone is making a boatload on a problem existing doesn't mean someone else doesn't want to make a truckload undercutting that business, even if the first business might try to stop it, well, sometimes a different set of bad guys wins.
>The point of passkeys is that they're unexportable. Software implementations like Bitwarden/KeepassXC/etc. making them exportable go right against the point of the protocols.
No, that is absolutely not the point. The points of using pub/priv keys for asymmetric auth instead of passwords (symmetric, manually generated auth) are:
- Server-side (ie, central point) hacks no longer matter an iota from a user auth pov. No more having to worry about reuse anywhere else, about going around changing passwords, nada, because the server simply doesn't have anything that can be used for auth anymore at all. No more concerns about whether they're storing it with the right hash functions or whatever, they could publish all the public keys in plain text and it'd be irrelevant. This fantastically changes the economics of attacks, since now instead of hacking one place and getting thousands/millions/hundreds of millions of credentials you'd have to hack every single separate client.
- As a practical matter, the process means eliminating the whole ancient hodgepodge of password requirements (often outright anti-security) and bad practices and manual generation work. Everything gets standardized on something that will always be random, unique, and secure.
And that should be it. That's the point and the value, always was. The only goal should be to put a nice UX and universal standard around. But of course, modern enshittified tech being enshittified, they had to shove in a bunch of stupid fucking bullshit garbage like what you're talking about.
Thank you, you have been the first person to articulate why passkeys are actually an advantage. Everyone else I've read from was focusing on the client side and there I really don't see a significant advantage. In fact it seems it's a downgrade from MFA, so I never understood the push for passkeys.
This is very well put, thank you (though I think you got a little needlessly aggro at the end :) ). A big part of why I find this situation so frustrating is passkeys are such a cool technology and genuinely a big improvement over passwords. I even spent a whole day writing a big article about how cool they are! But the big tech company lock-in stuff is so obvious, and so strongly supported by the spec authors and the passkey community, that it's hard to see it as unintentional. It completely poisons the technology, and that sucks because I really do want to use it.
>This is very well put, thank you (though I think you got a little needlessly aggro at the end :) ).
My apologies to GP if it came across as too personally aggro, I did mention the corps and their walled gardens to try to be clear on the focus, but the situation does really make me absolutely furious and also truly sad. This should have been such a simple, universal win/win/win that made everything better for everyone. But as you say:
>and so strongly supported by the spec authors and the passkey community, that it's hard to see it as unintentional. It completely poisons the technology, and that sucks because I really do want to use it.
Yeah, 110%. I'm one of the very few who actually tried to use certificates for web authentication back in the 00s, and it did work pretty darn well surprisingly! There were even a few commercial web services that tried it out like the now defunct StartSSL. It was just the whole flow around it was too clunky for regular people and needed some additional standardization and polish. If only the right catalyst had happened to make it a priority in the 2000s it might well have been done in a lasting good way that'd then be too sticky and entrenched to fuck with now. It's depressing to see it being hijacked and poisoned like it has been :(.
Hard to imagine that's the a core part of it, and pretty naturally in America the clear ongoing and unprecedented (in modern times anyway) corruption on that front is the focus. But it probably doesn't hurt that she appears to just be a really big fan of that particular dictator and torture prison specifically. Earlier this year her site "the Free Press" was all over them [0]:
>"The hottest campaign stop is this Salvadoran supermax: House Republican Riley Moore went to the super maximum security prison in El Salvador to take some photos in front of the inmates. “I just toured the CECOT prison in El Salvador,” he writes, with pictures of him giving a thumbs-up, shirtless inmates standing at attention behind him. Moore gave a double thumbs-up in front of the men, densely packed in their cold metal bunk. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem took the same tour recently, posting a fun video in front of caged, tatted men."
>"After Bukele left the White House, he thirstily tweeted, “I miss you already, President T.” Trump returned the favor, learning to say MAGA in Spanish: “¡America grande, otra vez!”"
Etc. And she's been very positive on Bukele personally as well. Might be multiple reasons she'd gleefully want to spike such a story even if the commands of her owners take precedent.
Edit: whew, this one sure triggered the technofeudalists and Baristans! From 3 to -3 for her own publication's and her statements.
I'm not sure how you can read that and think it is speaking favorably about the prison.
Here are some parts you left out:
> The El Salvador supermax prison is becoming the new Ohio Diner. It’s the new Iowa State Fair. It’s the new Jeffrey Epstein jet: It’s where every political leader needs to visit, the place to see and be seen if you’re ambitious and in politics today.
> They agreed that there was nothing to be done about the mistakenly deported Maryland man, now in Salvadoran custody. Two leaders of two great countries simply cannot find that one random wrongly deported man, and everyone should move along (I’m assuming that means he’s dead, right?).
I've been in the market for an electric truck for a solid 5 years now to replace my aging Nissan Frontier. There has yet to be anything attractive at all that has made it into production at any price I've been able to find. Everything seems to be a gas truck with some electric stuff shoehorned in not taking advantage of the new design opportunities at all, and generally with a little 4' bed instead of 6.5 or 8 that I need. So far the best design I've seen was from the startup Canoo [0, 1], but as is unsurprisingly typically the case with a car startup (a really high capex challenging area) they have since gone bankrupt. The Cybertruck at announcement looked sorta promising, with a decent sized bed (6.5 at the time), decent top range (500 miles), and cab moved forward for better visibility with no engine in the way. And in principle there are some really good fully offline "cyber" sorts of features that an ambitious company could do, like making liberal use of modern screens to enable "look through your hood" and better all around awareness, built-in FLIR for enhanced animal detection at night, etc. A self-parking feature that was really solid would be good too, zero general public road self-driving needed for that to be handy. But of course the Cybertruck ended up downgrading in every respect, having mediocre build quality, being heavily delayed, full of Tesla spyware and stupid shit, and in general being made by a vehicle & power company that oddly doesn't actually seem interested in vehicles or power anymore.
It's frustrating seeing all the potential and then having to wait and wait for somebody to finally execute. Same as with PDAs/smartphones until Apple finally shook things up or countless other examples throughout tech history. Maybe it'll be China who actually does it this time around, and a small silver lining might be that could also go along with some actual anti-feudalism and pro-privacy laws in the US if we're very lucky :\.
Why do you need a truck? Serious question, in europe professionals have a van, like the Ford e-transit, and if you just need to haul some stuff from your summerhouse sometimes you hitch a trailer to your car. Why do you need a truck? Couldn’t you buy an electric van instead?
For personal use, like you mention, people use a small trailer. You own one or borrow it freely from many places, hitch it to your car, haul dirt, and then detach it. No need to drive a truck everywhere because you need to haul some stuff once a month.
> But this idea that no normal person needs a pickup truck a dozen times a year is just weird.
Yet the US is the only country where office workers own trucks. The only real use of a F150 style truck is offroad hauling, which is not something most people have to regularly do.
You borrow it freely in places where you don’t need it. In rural areas they aren’t available. And getting a trailer and towing it is t as convenient as just driving a truck.
> Do people load their Transits with piles of dirt and mulch? I doubt it.
I am from the UK but live in Canada. I only see three types of businesses using those Transit style vans here in North America: food delivery, parcel delivery and landscaping businesses. I assume the landscapers are carrying dirt at least some of the time.
I see carpenters and electricians who trick them out with a little workshop, but that's really it. Landscapers it makes sense because you're hauling equipment and storing it in the van, so you can probably both store more and protect from the elements
The split for the rest of the world is: Transit-like van for almost everything in places with real roads, Hilux-sized truck in places without roads and contractors who mostly carry dirt, gravel etc. Only the US and Canada use F150-sized trucks.
Not sold (really) in the US. There's the VW electric van but that's more of a gimmick than anything else.
In the US, there's also just a pretty big infrastructure around tooling trucks for professional work. Not that that doesn't exist for vans in the US, it's just somewhat more common to see trucks having full toolsets on the side for quick access with a decent sized bed. The F350 is a major workhorse for that sort of thing.
>> "VW electric van but that's more of a gimmick than anything else."
Really? ... I'm seeing them adopted more widely in Europe now by businesses. Perhaps as second hand or lease prices are coming down. Maybe that doesn't translate to the US ...
Quite nostalgic seeing them run around Central London with business signs on their side... much like the originals. My point: not a gimmick in my experience.
I live in rural northern New England, and as well on-road I have plenty of either off road or unmaintained road usage year round, and a number of loads in those conditions that exceed the width of the vehicle (so wouldn't be public road legal). Also equipment and loads that exceed the height of the vehicle (which is road legal if properly secured). In principle a van with sufficient towing capacity and off road capability could use a trailer of some kind for those roles, I have nothing against vans per se, but since I don't need extra "interior space" the bonuses of vans don't help much vs the reduced flexibility and extra complications. I do keep my eye on them too because the line between "truck" and "van" can be fuzzy and if something sorta convertible or with some innovative ways to straddle the sufficient for my purposes came along I'd certainly consider it, but it hasn't been the case yet and the truck form factor is just really handy for making do with a surprise need on the spot far from anything with sufficient straps and bungie cords, without needing any other equipment.
It'd be nice if it could be a reasonable price too and not include a lot of the bling, though I'm perfectly aware a huge percentage of the truck buying audience cares about that a great deal vs having their truck all beat up and just wanting it to go forwards/backwards/left/right on demand reliably with a bunch of random stuff every day. But it'd be good to see anything at all that tried to work with the advantages of electric vs the limitations and both give a good truck experience and improve the experience for others that share the land, like with greatly enhanced visibility and better shapes that enhance safety for pedestrians. Don't need a ginormous engine to have very good torque with electric. I'm hopeful somebody will get there eventually but I guess the path has proven more winding then I'd once thought it'd be, I'd expected the iteration to be going pretty hard and fast by now (in America/EU I mean, it does seem to be moving real quick now in China).
Anyway, hope that gives some answer to your question. Just one solitary data point, I don't mean to do any extrapolation from this to the wider market, but I do actually use my truck pretty hard for truck things. We have compact efficient cars as well though for long distance travel and the like, my truck at least will spend 99% of its time within a 150 mile radius for work or any other use.
On the flip side, as a van owner (though not a professional "working van") ...
1. you don't need straps and bungees for the van - ours can take pipework, framing lumber and other "long" stuff up to 16', straight on the floor, fully interior.
2. you don't need the gate down - it handles 4x8' sheet goods with all the doors closed, either vertical or horizontal
3. security concerns are much better
4. weather concerns are much better
5. for some folks, you can have highly effective work space inside the van (granted, I've seen some loose equivalents on custom work trucks)
6. mileage is generally significantly better
From my POV, the two wins of the truck form factor are (a) easy of loading/unloading bulk material (e.g. the van is 100% useless for gravel) (b) tall loads. That said, I don't think I've ever need to move anything that was too tall for our Sprinter - worst comes to worst, it gets laid down.
That's not a "flip side" just different uses. I said wide as well as tall, not just long. Truck is also useful for loose loads, including that I can put stuff (sand/gravel/soil) directly into the bed from my tractor bucket as well. And the form factor does feel better sometimes too imo. Like, just 3 days ago I moved around 1100 lbs of concrete mix for a small job, and even though I could have fit them into a van in principle for loading/unloading and cleaning of all the nasty dust it's nice just to have a truck bed. Security is whatever here, and I don't think weather is actually much of an impact either since you can easily add a basic cover if you want (and then have it out of the way when unneeded). They're useful and at least in the past could be had pretty utilitarian and cheap. Small little things too, like just plain less volume for environmental control in a no-cab or half-cab vs a full or van, always seemed a little easier/faster to heat up or cool down. But this is all really personal, and as they've turned more and more into show vehicles the value has gotten worse for sure.
People buy them _because_ they are ginormous and hostile. It's part of the marketing. Ford could make a pedestrian safe work vehicle but they won't because selfish people love these. Especially when it becomes an arms race when half the population drive them. Oversized vehicles need to be taxed more and regulated properly.
The bed is only 4.5' long. The 5.5' short bed available on an F150 Lightning is too short for me, the ICE F150 with a 6.5' bed at least lets you have flat sheet goods with the tail gate down.
Yeah, there's really no reason why something like the Isuzu Elf couldn't be electrified for cheap.
Car manufacturers wanting to make EVs premium products is what I think hurts them the most. That along with tariffs keeping the price of Chinese batteries much higher then they should be.
It sounds like you unfortunately have gotten yourself kinda stuck, but I very much sympathize. I too have an account dating back to iTools, and for a long time it was a major frustration that I was stuck with that original email address as unchangeable for the Apple ID, unlike newer accounts. However, some time in the last, I dunno 3-5 years maybe? I can't remember now the exact time I noticed, but after over a decade of requests and fading hope Apple actually did allow me to change the email address for that Apple ID, which I shifted to my own domain. So for anyone else who hasn't checked in a long time, worth noting situation might be marginally better now.
Re: "mac.com isn't doing email anymore", all the original mac.com email addresses still work fine. Apple has played around with various domains (mac.com/me.com/icloud.com) over their decades of bumbling with online services but they made them all interchangeable for older users, mails to the original @mac.com emails still go through. Even originally made aliases (they allowed 5 with iTools) still work. Not sure what your issue was on that one.
Finally yeah, ""security"" questions are one of those horrible legacy anti-patterns that I will cheer to see finally be dead and buried. If you try to answer them honestly probably anyone can learn it with a bit of online searching, if you go for more obscure stuff they're easy to forget defeating the purpose. It's really best just to treat them as extra passwords, use random alphanumeric values and keep them in your password manager same as the password. Apple has also fumbled around with recovery over the years, at one point you had options to have a manual recovery key you could save but I think that's dead and can't set it up after already forgetting. Maybe if you go in person to a store with physical ID and evidence, if you had payment associated with the account and have that credit card for example that might do it.
If you have nothing of value tied to the account though probably no reason not to just abandon it.
Blacklists are an inherently terrible, rights infringing approach to this sort of issue vs whitelists. It would be a lot better if the internet by default was simply considered 18+ (or 16+ or whatever a country wants). Instead, the tld system could be easily used to have age based domains where anyone who wanted one had to meet some set of requirements for content standards, accountability and content vetting, didn't allow user contributed content at all without review or whatever was needed.
At that point all the technical components exist to make this an ultra easy UI for parents. Require ISP WiFi routers at least to support VLANs and PPSKs, which ultra cheap gear can do nowadays no problem, and have an easy to GUI to "generate child password, restrict to [age bracket]", heck to even just put in a birthday and by default have it auto-increment access if a parent wants. Add some easy options for time-of-day restrictions etc, done. Now parents are in charge and no adult needs anything ever.
Now I highly doubt politicians are all being honest about full motivations here, clearly there are plenty of forces trying to use this issue as a wedge to go after rights in general. But at the same time parental concern is real, and non-technical people find it overwhelming. It'd be good if industries and community could proactively offer a working solution, that'd reduce the political salience a great deal. It's unfortunate the entire narrative has been allowed to go 100% backwards in approach.
To be frank, while it may have a level of technical beauty, this kind of "opt-in whitelist" approach is an authoritarian's dream.
Once the baseline is established, the playbook becomes simple: Shift that age bracket up to the very moment when someone can vote. Make sure that every new voter spends all their formative years unable to access even basic resources on the struggles that marginalized groups go through, and the history of their existence; set the bars for the "whitelist" so high that one must toe the party line in every bit of messaging, and thus is effectively a list of propagandists whose businesses can be fined astronomically if they deviate. Take away the parent's choice, and make it mandatory to use routers that block the non-whitelisted TLDs for any device that doesn't cryptographically authenticate as being operated by an adult. Find ways to impose this on groups other than children (for instance, by making it illegal for criminals to access the non-whitelisted web, then greatly expanding that definition). All in the name of peace and tranquility.
If you want V for Vendetta, this is how you get V for Vendetta.
... only to the degree it hasn't been manufactured by tabloid media and Russian propaganda warfare, that is.
With every little news about local shootings, robberies, rapes, beatings, thefts, whatever not just making national, but in the worst case international headlines, one might think that Western countries are unsafe hellholes of the likes of actually legitimately failed states - despite criminality rates often being on record lows. Of course parents are going to be afraid for their children, and it's made worse by many Western countries financially only allowing for one, maximum two children.
On top of that, a lot of the panic is simply moral outrage. Porn and "trans grooming" it seems to be these days, I 'member growing up with the "Killerspiele" bullshit after some nutjob shot up a school in the early '00s. My parents grew up with the manufactured fear of reading too much as it was supposed to make you myopic. Again, all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces.
Parents should relax and rather teach their children about what can expect them on the Internet, how people might want to take advantage of them, and most importantly, that their children can always come to them when they feel something is going bad, without repercussions. When children think that they cannot show something to their parents, that is where the actual do-bad people have an in.
The problems I mentioned aren't real, that's the point.
It hasn't just never been proven that Counter Strike et al cause amok runs, it's been disproven [1]. Consuming porn doesn't make people rapists (although I do concede: the ethical aspects particularly around studio-produced porn do require discussions), and consuming LGBT content doesn't make children LGBT. People are, to the extent that we reasonably know, born LGBT.
The fact that some organizations (particularly religious) have framed these issues as "political" doesn't make them political either.
Very much this. The research points to hours spent on social media - not 'I saw something adult and now my fragile little mind is le bork'.
If you want kids to be healthier you're gonna have to deal with it on the device level at worst, and the healthcare level at best. Include mental health services and counseling as part of a single-payer preventative care plan if you really, really want to save the kids.
"The problems I mentioned aren't real, that's the point."
Can you possibly think that determining what is and is not a valid problem isn't a subjective evaluation?
Even looking at your examples, which are not chosen well for your argument. In each of these you're just shifting the burden of proof to reflect what your values. "No one has proven counter strike causes violent behavior, consuming porn makes people rapists or people can become gay." All wide-open empirical questions. Maybe none of these gets resolved in the near future; they aren't even well-formed questions. Meanwhile parents, governments, policy-makers need to make decisions. If you are very concerned about your kid being violent, you will avoid videogames even as a precautionary measure.
"The fact that some organizations (particularly religious) "
Ah you found an even easier way to resolve the issue, just ignore religious values.
Maybe go after Discord then for doing nothing meaningful against abusive, should we not?
And if that means that Discord has to shut down... well, okay, if that's the price? An organisation that doesn't care about the impact on its host society is nothing more than a parasite or cancer and should be treated as such.
(Besides: if you're aiming at stuff like groups of kids bullying other kids into suicide or self harm - guess what: that existed in times where there was no Internet. It just wasn't widely reported, other than maybe holding a vigil for a classmate who had "passed away")
I'm not debating whether they should ban VPNs for minors with you. I'm providing a counter statement to your ill-conceived thought that this is "all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces".
> I'm providing a counter statement to your ill-conceived thought that this is "all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces".
What is making Discord different from the real world? Do we ban kids from going to school because they could get bullied there?
Yes, sure, some content we decide to age-gate in real life... but hell. Our parents perused the VHS porn stash of their parents. Their parents wanked off to Playboy magazines. It has all been bullshit from the start.
>The entire point of Section 230 is that carriers can claim to be just the messenger
Incorrect, and it's honestly kinda fascinating how this meme shows up so often. What you're describing is "common carrier" status, like an ISP (or Fedex/UPS/post office) would have. The point of Section 230 was specifically to enable not being "just the messenger", it was part of the overall Communications Decency Act intended to aid in stopping bad content. Congress added Section 230 in direct reaction to two court cases (against Prodigy and CompuServe) which made service providers liable for their user's content when they didn't act as pure common carriers but rather tried to moderate it but, obviously and naturally, could not perfectly get everything. The specific fear was that this left only two options: either ban all user content, which would brutalize the Internet even back then, or cease all moderation, turning everything into a total cesspit. Liability protection was precisely one of the rare genuine "think of the children!" wins, by enabling a 3rd path where everyone could do their best to moderate their platforms without becoming the publisher. Not being a common carrier is the whole point!
> Congress added Section 230 in direct reaction to two court cases (against Prodigy and CompuServe) which made service providers liable for their user's content when they didn't act as pure common carriers but rather tried to moderate it but, obviously and naturally, could not perfectly get everything.
I know that. I spoke imprecisely; my framing is that this imperfect moderation doesn't take away their immunity — i.e. they are still treated as if they were "just the messenger" (per the previous rules). I didn't use the actual "common carrier" phrasing, for a reason.
It doesn't change the argument. Failing to apply a content policy consistently is not, logically speaking, an act of expression; choosing to show content preferentially is.
... And so is setting a content policy. For example, if a forum explicitly for hateful people set a content policy explicitly banning statements inclusive or supportive of the target group, I don't see why the admin should be held harmless (even if they don't also post). Importantly, though, the setting (and attempt at enforcing) the policy is only expressing the view of the policy, not that of any permitted content; in US law it would be hard to imagine a content policy expressing anything illegal.
But my view is that if they act deliberately to show something, based on knowing and evaluating what it is that they're showing, to someone who hasn't requested it (as a recommendation), then they really should be liable. The point of not punishing platforms for failing at moderation is to let them claim plausible ignorance of what they're showing, because they can't observe and evaluate everything.
>But on the other hand, we all rally for the importance of anonymity on the internet, so it's very likely that there will be no way to find the author.
So:
1) We all rally for the importance of anonymity (wrt general speech) EVERYWHERE, before even (and critical to) the founding of America. Writing like the Federalist Papers were absolutely central to arguments for the US Constitution, and they were anonymous. "The Internet" is not anything special or novel here per se when it comes to the philosophy and politics of anonymous speech. There has always been a tension with anonymous speech risks vs value, and America has come down quite firmly on the value side of that.
2) That said, "anonymous" on the internet very rarely actually is to the level of "no way to find the author with the aid of US court ordered process". Like, I assume that just as my real name is not "xoa" your real name is not "xg15", and to the extent we have made some effort at maintaining our pseudonymity it'd be somewhat difficult for any random member of the general public to connect our HN speech to our meatspace bodies. But the legal process isn't limited to public information. If you have a colorable lawsuit against someone, you can sue their placeholder and then attempt to discover their identity via private data. HN has our IP addresses if nothing else, as does intermediaries between the system we're posting from and HN, as well as possibly a valid email address. Which can potentially by themselves be enough breadcrumbs to follow back to a person and have enough cause to engage in specific discovery against them. And this is without any money getting involved, if there are any payments of any kind that leaves an enormous number of ripples. And that's assuming nobody left any other clues, that you can't make any inferences about who would be doing defamatory speech against you and narrow it down further that.
Yes, it's possible someone at random is using a massive number of proxies from a camera-less logless public access point with virgin monero or whatever and perfect opsec, but that really is not the norm.
3) Hosters not being directly liable doesn't make them immune to court orders. If something is defamatory you can secure an order to have it removed even without finding the person in question. And in practice most hosters are probably going to remove something upon notification as fast as possible, as in this case, and ban the poster in question on top.
So no, I don't think it's a "a massive vacuum of responsibility" anymore than it ever was, and the contrast is that eliminating anonymous speech is a long proven massive risk to basic freedoms.
This comment could use some elaboration. For those that don't know you can use a Yubikey that supports PIV as a smart card for logging into macOS and performing a range of admin authentication operations with just the PIN, not just in the GUI but sudo as well (and of course more directly for SSH etc). It's not a perfect substitute, no ApplePay, but it means you can have a long complex password and only need a 6-8 digit PIN for most usage while still being pretty safe, and has some positives of its own in a multiuser or machine environment. It's a very reasonable option to consider IMO, even though yes it'd absolutely be nice if Apple did better on the hardware auth front.
Though amongst many other wonderful things lost in the mysts of Mac history I still desperately miss NetBoot/NetInstall and ultra easy clone/boot with something like CCC and TDM. It's so fucking miserable now in comparison to do reinstalls/testing/restores.
reply