The reason no one converts between feet and miles is because it's a pain in the ass, this doesn't prove it's not useful.

Your circular handsaw still has the same precision... If you are close enough to 1/16th of an inch when cutting to millimeters, you won't know the difference between having done it in 1/16th. I also think that European construction workers would disagree on the usefulness of inches.

Those feet to inch conversions, works great if you leave them out. Now out of a sample of 10 random people how many can do this quicker in binary than decimal?

Except that every man uses base 10 for his calculations already, so familiarity will outweigh the meager "benefits" (because 1/3 will do when it really matters, that is, almost never). Not to mention that US customary only enjoys 12 at one step of the length unit continuum, negating the whole point by just being random. And if we disregard what base everyone is familiar with you'll find that humans can't actually divide by three without measuring tools, which means that it's 8 or 16 that make for a easily divisible base, not 12. 12 is great for selling integer goods, but it has no tangible benefits as a numeral base, particularly when point fractions are used.

Hmm, your letter sized information sheet is useful and looks good! I'd like to have a printout twice as large without buying special paper, cutting or redesigning. Could you just print on the 2xLetter that I use all the time then?

Another question, if I may, when is the last time you needed to know how big a sheet of paper is when not working in a program that will tell you or a sheet and a ruler at hand? Would knowing the size to 3 millimeters have been precise enough on that occasion?

Let's try another one. What's the margin of error on your letter paper, and has it ever been a problem?

In other words: if your saw takes off two millimeters and will be off the mark by one half of the time, than rounding to the nearest millimeter is all you need.

Do they actually use tools that precise in the US, or is it imaginary precision. Also, no one uses thirds of inches, so the "need" for thirds is something that people use to retroactively explain the superiority of units that don't match the base used for counting. When the units don't feature thirds, thirds are rarely used, when they are, they are rounded in practice, so cut straight to the rounding part as that is what happens in the real world. FURTHERMORE, since the base doesn't match the units, it's only one fucking step you get to divide by three anyway. Under inches it's binary, above feet everyone just uses multiples of feet. Useless hard to remember and deal with in practice bullshit. Excuses to not learn anything new.

If your company requires your phone to not be rooted you can't install any code that requires rooting. This doesn't affect GPLv3 anything, it can even still be shipped with GPLv3 code as long as it's user space/the device can be rooted by the owner (be it you, or your company), even if you opt not to do it.

GPLv3 requires that any GPLv3 code shipped on the device needs to be able to be replaced by modified versions, it doesn't require the device to be in a state ready to accept such modifications without additional intervention.

GPLv3 means it is not going to be distributed with a device that can't be unlocked. "Installation instructions" for a Nexus device: enable third party sources and install .apk for user space, unlock device, root, install whatever you want. That's all you need to provide.

It's not completely useless, in such a system fixing security issues would not just prevent future attacks but also neutralize compromises without rebuilding the whole thing from a trusted source. Current: your system gets exploited, you now may have untrusted executable code in the system, fixing the original exploit doesn't do much. Signed: your system gets exploited, you now may have untrusted data on your system ready to re-exploit at runtime, fixing the original exploit renders said data inert (like it should have been in the first place).

You haven't seen anyone using "BSD's back scratcher" because what it actually means is that it was made from BSD wood. Some people like seeing their wood carved into back scratchers and seeing their name in the booklet everyone throws away without reading, I don't get it, but I don't have a problem with it. Why they feel the need to complain that those who insist that back scratchers made from their wood come with schematics ready for laser cutting are somehow less helpful is beyond me.

Freezing shouldn't ruin the crust if you defrost on the counter and put it in a hot oven for a few as needed.

Seriously, if you don't like Omnifarious' comment, move on. No need to make a fuss about it!

OP was selectively emphasizing their quote to support the argument that only the full key can be considered a clue to the key, this is not the case outside of perfect implementations. It's the difference between determining that a one-time pad was (attempted to be, if one insists on defining away errors) used and giving up because it's impossible to decrypt and attempting to crack it on the basis that knowing the definition doesn't tell you everything about the message in front of you.

So, Debian was not in fact generating weakened DSA keys when they messed up the RNG in OpenSSL? The spec requires proper entropy, thus the keys though seemingly compatible weren't DSA keys at all?