I'm engaging in pedantry here, but computer science has proofs. When we have hardware level security vulnerabilities, I trust my device as far as I can throw it

I'm engaging in pedantry here, but computer science has proofs. When we have hardware level security vulnerabilities, I trust my device as far as I can throw it. Proofs are only sound and valid in maths. https://securityintelligence.com/news/apple-m-series-chips-hardware-flaw/ https://securityintelligence.com/news/apple-m-series-chips-h... Everything Apple's done yields verifiable security - but it's not "provably secure". The two are distinct, and when you try to sell to me with bad language I get squinty-eyed. Especially since "confidential computing" already exists on x86/AWS, and I struggle to see the difference. It just sounds like Apple marketing to me. > don’t totally discount the idea of designing a system that has provable security properties They're only as provable as your assumptions/givens. Given a hardware vuln, where is your security now?