This is a fair criticism. That said, I have a hard time believing that anyone was literally brought into an uncontrollable rage over ME even when we first found out about it. Additionally, nobody in the comment section appears to be in such a state.
Accordingly, I assumed that the top level comment was using "outrage" defined closer to the most scathing comments posted, perhaps as "unwilling to forget about, or accept".
We have no duty or obligation to forget about or accept the risks of unauditable, embedded microprocessors with full, undetectable access to onboard GbE, memory, main CPU registers, PCI devices etc. This subsystem poses extreme risk to privacy. The fact that is impossible to purchase new consumer-grade (not $1,000+ Power9) chips without this subsystem is consistent with what we would expect from an on-chip backdoor should one be proposed (or imposed) by US intelligence agencies, which have a lengthy history of rampant human rights abuses, a mission focused on violating privacy, a history of attempting to impose similar subsystems (clipper chip, MS Palladium), and who have a clear economic incentive to develop access that doesn't require them to keep playing the continual cat-and-mouse game of software exploit development and management.
I'm extremely skeptical of the intentions of anyone telling me that I should not be angry about the fact that there is an unauditable subsystem that heuristically matches almost everything needed for the MVP of a hypothetical hardware backdoor, that I cannot freely decide not to have bundled with new hardware, solely for the reason "it's existence has been known for close to a decade".
This top-level comment reeks of COINTELPRO-esque efforts to convince individuals to risk-accept a subsystem they have zero incentive to keep, but that intelligence agencies have massive incentive to retain, should it actually be a backdoor.
While it's a flawed philosophical/psychological model for reality, the seven stages of grief is quite applicable here. Why do people "get over" grief? Time...
Grief never actually goes away, but it lessens to the point where it no longer is emotionally painful to think about. Grief lessens after every thought has been thought, every word has been said, every emotion has been felt, over and over to the point where there's nothing left. Time heals all wounds, as it has been said.
The reason people are not feverously debating IME anymore is time. All of the arguments have been made... over and over. At this point, people are tired of the same things being said ad nauseam.
This is the same reason we see systemd-related comments downvoted and flagged into oblivion. People are tired of it...
So, while most of us agree IME is probably not something the average home user wants or needs, and IME is probably something that should be resisted... people are just not going to get worked up about it at the mere mention of IME anymore. That time passed... and therefore the word "outrage" is wildly inappropriate when applied here.
Accordingly, I assumed that the top level comment was using "outrage" defined closer to the most scathing comments posted, perhaps as "unwilling to forget about, or accept".
We have no duty or obligation to forget about or accept the risks of unauditable, embedded microprocessors with full, undetectable access to onboard GbE, memory, main CPU registers, PCI devices etc. This subsystem poses extreme risk to privacy. The fact that is impossible to purchase new consumer-grade (not $1,000+ Power9) chips without this subsystem is consistent with what we would expect from an on-chip backdoor should one be proposed (or imposed) by US intelligence agencies, which have a lengthy history of rampant human rights abuses, a mission focused on violating privacy, a history of attempting to impose similar subsystems (clipper chip, MS Palladium), and who have a clear economic incentive to develop access that doesn't require them to keep playing the continual cat-and-mouse game of software exploit development and management.
I'm extremely skeptical of the intentions of anyone telling me that I should not be angry about the fact that there is an unauditable subsystem that heuristically matches almost everything needed for the MVP of a hypothetical hardware backdoor, that I cannot freely decide not to have bundled with new hardware, solely for the reason "it's existence has been known for close to a decade".
This top-level comment reeks of COINTELPRO-esque efforts to convince individuals to risk-accept a subsystem they have zero incentive to keep, but that intelligence agencies have massive incentive to retain, should it actually be a backdoor.