I’m not saying this is a small issue and nothing should be done. I just noted that the issue is not as big as some other hardware-based vulnerabilities we encountered in the past. And every threat model calls for a corresponding counter-measure.

You are assuming activists are well funded in some way, and that they are not repressed. I’m assuming they are repressed, which is why they have people that buy and configure their equipment and hand it to them so that it hasn’t been tampered with. If you cannot afford that your should use your computer as if it was compromised.

You’re basically saying consumers don’t need any kind of antivirus either Where did I write that?

And what makes it so hard to release patches for consumer hardware. AMD focusing on where its money’s at and OEM/motherboard manufacturers being cheap and lazy and not pushing forward updates when they have them.

Agreed, firmware security by chip manufacturers has been underwhelming to say the least and we can blame them for that. But in this specific instance I still don’t see the benefit of a fix for consumer usage. Companies have a responsibility and accountability toward their users, so a fix is due, for personal laptops/PCs the threat is toward the owners themselves (activists, diplomats, journalists, etc.). The latter do not buy second hand equipment, and if the firmware is compromised while they own it, they are already in danger.

Consumer usage is not really concerned by the attack scenario of this vulnerability from what I understand. The prerequisite is to have access to the bios so it’s already game over at this point.

A negative price is absurd and has no physical reality, it is the result of speculation and abstract rules not grounded on reality. It always costs to build and operate whatever power source and networks were involved, you don’t have to pay electricity to f*ck off if you produce too much of it.