Watermarks are only an issue in-as-much as it is used to trace down which copy was leaked.

With modern digital projection systems; you don't get a reel of film; you get a briefcase of [SS/HD]Ds containing the raw, encrypted, footage. The digital projection system will decrypt using provided keys. There's no output except the standard ones for the theatre projectors and sound systems...so capturing the output is difficult.

If you do intercept the signal; the projection system might detect it; and refuse playback or wipe the decryption keys. Watermarking is also a danger; since your theater can get identified as the leak source and sued.

Ah; I don't use Chinese branded phones at all. Never have.

Phones in the US market do not usually have them, unless they're Samsung branded, and since I don't include Chinese made phones in that "group", what I'm saying is true for the US.

Uh, No. Hell to the fucking no. Bring back SD expansion. Treat it like the data storage device it was.

Your beefs with Google are misplaced; because they were trying to mess with what folders were used; and with trying to protect user privacy because applications were misusing storage to violate their user's privacy.

• Losing SD Expansion sucks; they should bring this back. Only reason they stopped this is greed.
• Yet another Nice-To-Have that is gone; but I've never seen any phones that weren't Samsung with this. This one doesn't really even affect waterproofing; or phone size so they have no excuse.
• I certainly miss this one; but the FM Radio was present back on my 2020 Moto G6 Power. It was present on my 2020 Moto Edge. This one got stolen from us because we lost the 3.5mm Jack too...they used the wire from your wired headphones as an FM Antenna lead.
• This is nice; but I ended up having to root my Nexus 6 to make this work properly and use all the colors the LED could perform. I don't really miss it with Bezel-less phones.
• I hate that bootloaders are frequently locked; but it's been less necessary to root Android as it's improved over the years. There are still a few pain points; but not quite as many that require root.
• This is another case of greed. There's no reason why we shouldn't have removable batteries for phones that aren't IP67 or higher. If it ain't waterproof; there's no reason to seal the battery in...and replaceable batteries is a benefit when they accidentally ship units that become "spicy pillows" when the batteries swell due to bad batteries. It also simplifies disposal of phones; which don't need disassembly if they've got a removable battery.

I'm not accounting for State laws; which may in fact be stricter. I'm talking about Federal Laws which might not explicitly forbid such things; so long as they're done in an actually safe manner by professionals.

But, as I said before, if the DEA believes it has the power to stop that none-the-less; that's what they will do, without respect to if the law is actually legally unclear or borderline. Unfortunately many pharmaceutical places don't care to invite the wrath of the DEA; even if what they're doing could be considered permissible; so long as they do not synthesize an exact drug that the Feds specifically name as a controlled substance.

Again; IANAL either. But I do think there's a lot of room for small compounding pharmacies to synthesize various drugs to meet a patient's needs quickly while waiting for proper shipments to arrive. There's lots of compounds that are life-sustaining that do not fall under the DEA banner of authority.

Depending on how Vyvanse is Scheduled; it might be legal to privately make. If it's not scheduled like a standard amphetamine; the DEA is powerless.

I have a sneaking suspicion it's not illegal to compound this stuff. But IANAL; and it doesn't matter if the DEA thinks it is and will hassle anyone trying.

I firmly think this would be a boon for many people; owning one of these is likely a lifeline that even small town physicians could utilize to dispense drugs freely or cheaply to patients in need.

This is something that I think small-town pharmacies could use to create compounds in cases of drug shortages. I think tools and programs and small labs like what are discussed in the article are a positive force for good; and that they should be not only allowed, but encouraged, for many drugs that are expensive, unavailable to someone in need and can be readily synthesized safely with a basic college level of chemistry training by someone in a pharmacy.

I think the potential risks and downsides are small right now; and I think more of it should be encouraged gently so that we can find out quickly what the flaws and limitations are so that we can put regulatory guardrails around it so that people do not harm themselves.

The rot is deep. Avoiding it often requires you to become a hermit.

You try convincing your tech unsavvy friends to change services, your boss to let you use linux, and all your favorite communities not to use Discord, Google and YouTube. Last of all; good luck finding that one obscure widget you need right now to make something work without using Amazon.

I promise all of the above are harder than they sound. It shouldn't be harder; but it is.

It feels like this vulnerability isn't notable for the majority of users who don't typically include "Being compromised by a Nation-State-Level Actor."

That being said; I do hope they get it fixed; and it looks like there's already mitigations in place like protecting the authentication by another factor such as a PIN. That helps; for people who do have the rare threat model issue in play.

The complexity of the attack also seems clearly difficult to achieve in any time frame; and would require likely hundreds of man-hours of work to pull off.

If we assume they're funded enough to park a van of specialty equipment close enough to you; steal your key and clone it; then return it before you notice...nothing you can do can defend against them.

(As if spoken by the King to Simba:)

Rust: Everything from the bottom of this cliff to the acacia tree there is ours. Make sure you ask permission before you take something, take nothing you are not permitted to take. We don't go beyond that tree; and if you even think about the elephant graveyard beyond it; I'll kill you myself.

C: Everything the sun touches is yours. I caution you to not venture into the shadows; but I will not stop you, for you are a king, and nothing a king can do is unnecessary if it is for his people.

I think there's a problem with the 'C only' devs refusing to be accomodating to the Rust developers. Instead of being stubborn; why not provide them what is needed and help the Rust team learn how to maintain what is needed themselves?

None of the reasons I've seen mentioned are legitimate reasons for refusing to at least help them a few times, and helping them to learn how to do the onerous task themselves so they can keep it off the main plate for too long.

C devs do not need to learn Rust to provide critical information; they need only be present and cooperative with Rust devs to help them find, convert, and localize data structures for Rust use. They can stand to sit and pair code with their Rust Dev counterparts long enough to teach a Rust Dev counterpart how and what they need to look for in C code. It's not that big of an ask, and it's not something that really is a large ask. Provide the bindings for a short period of time, and work on training a team of Rust Devs to maintain the bindings.

That way both sides are stepping up to meet the others and the data isn't being sat on by the C-only Devs.

I'm certainly concerned that now that this software has been covered in PopSci; that it will certainly suffer a needless onslaught of DMCA and other lawsuit-related shenanigans. >_>