Many have correctly pointed out that Klein bottles are nothing new and glass blowers have been making them for some time. The headline is therefore misleading. Also, these aren't even real Klein bottles as a true Klein bottle can't exist in a three dimensional space.

All that being said, don't blame Cliff for the misleading headline. He didn't post it. He is, in fact, a really interesting guy. He's a frequent contributor to the Numberphile channel on YouTube and his videos are always interesting to watch. He's a real engineering nerd and in one video he shows how he stores all his Klein bottles in a crawlspace under his house and he built a robot that can drive around in said space to store and fetch these bottles. You should really check out some of his videos: he's a really entertaining and informative guy.

Just ask ChatGPT. It has answers for everything!

I saw many of the Youtube videos in question. He did not publish his child's medical history nor did he even mention his child's name. His purpose was mainly to describe the dystopian legal process he and his family had been put through. The court did order that he not do so and that he was not allowed to use his own name. I do think that one in general should obey court orders, but when a court imposes extreme and draconian restrictions on someone and then orders that person not to even discuss such draconian restrictions then the court has crossed the line from being a guardian of justice to being an instrument of a totalitarian state. This man was engaging in civil disobedience to shed some light on this frightening and dystopian system in order to spark some public debate. He is a hero in my opinion, but yours might differ. I do suggest you watch some of these videos and make up your own mind.

No I would not say it's fine if you're manufacturing toilet paper, but I take your general point.

Yeah. I remember getting a 486 in 1991 and that was a 32 bit machine.

I think the purpose in using a VPN here is to change your perceived location. As this law applies only in Nevada, young people in Nevada can use a VPN to mask their location and not face the E2EE age restrictions.

That's what current GPS receivers do. I'm suggesting that those in mission critical applications have anti-spoofing checks built in. They would look for synchronization errors between their internal clock (which would be set when synced on a true signal, as I mentioned) and those coming from the GPS signal. If someone attempted to replay a true signal at a later time, they clocks would not sync up and the unit would know the signal was spoofed. Digital signatures could prevent altering the time or spatial data to fool receivers.

Which is precisely why I mention that the signals include time information, to prevent replay attacks.

In exactly the same way the rules apply to commercial software. I don't see why commercial vs. open source should make any difference as far as the law is concerned here.

Why not add a digital signature to the true GPS signal? Since the signal includes time as well as position information, timestamps are automatically built in to prevent replay attacks. (The receiver would need to first fix on a true signal to set its internal clock, but this could be done before entering hostile territory.) The USSF (the organization that runs the GPS system) could publish public keys which could then be incorporated in receivers. Signals could still be jammed, but they could not be spoofed.

Really? So when I'm on vacation and I take a picture of my family on a crowded street or museum or amusement park, etc. I have to run around and get permission from every person who happens to be in the background? This is news to me. Do you have any citations for this?

It certainly does need to be redefined, or at least more clearly defined if the current definition is as you say it is. "Plagiarism is publishing someone else's work as if it were your own." What does "work" mean in that sentence? Does it mean exact words? The results of research studies? Ideas? And what exactly constitutes an "idea"? What is the exact test to determine if two ideas are the same or not? If two people independently come up with the same idea (and this happens all the time) is this plagiarism? What if both publish at the same time? What if one doesn't publish but discusses their ideas publicly and someone else later publishes the same idea? What if the idea is fairly obvious? Who gets to decide what is obvious and non-obvious and by what criteria? It's not nearly as simple as you seem to state.

You are allowed to use your own previously published work in exactly the same way you can use others' published works: with proper citations and quotation marks.

I don't recall anyone forcing me to have a social media account. If you are concerned about the harm it may do to you, there is a simple solution: don't use social media! Instead people seem to use it voraciously and then complain about the supposed harm it's doing. That doesn't make sense to me.

And who exactly do you feel is qualified to grant such authority?