Or you could, you know, use amzaon tools, or calibre, to convert from epub to mobi. Still, happy to have epubs in my kindle.

The pump and dump argument stops de moment you give Musk a reason to dump. The poisoned pill has tied SEC hands.

Nobody is complaining about that.
.
The claim is simple. There is no 1st class citizen support for versioning at ABI / stdlib API, and if there is, it's not good enough to upgrade to 128bit while still maintaining compatibility with existing 64bit binaries. And Breaking the ABI/stdlib API Is such a big deal, that bugfixes are delayed by the C++ committee or not accepted by vendors.
.
I don't know if there is merit to this claim, or if there is a simple enough solution to this issue. But the reaction of Slashdot (to a horrible summary), instead of discussing these ideas, is to claim that the status quo is ok, there are no issues and rust developers are idiots, or people with an agenda.

If you read the article, you'd have found that it does. Because Foreing Function Interfaces are using C headers, which is not an expressive enough tool to deal with that issue easily and simultaneously conserving ABI stability.

So I'm hijacking this post to advice people to read the fucking essay linked to the fucking article.
For me It's been really educating about what's wrong with using C for ABI definitions.
tl;dr; is: From a user perspective, everything auto magically works. But for a language developer, keeping track with all ABI/Arch/OS subtlety is unmanageable.

Define "You don't manage processor state directly".
Bare Metal ARM applications these days are written completely in C, including the startup code. Only exception is the linker script.
C hides registers and program counters, but if that's your argument even in assembly you don't manage the program counter directly. You use labels and let the compiler do the math for you.

Dude, he's not talking about Single CDs, but Vinyls.
Most music stopped being sold as Singles and started being sold as Albums until Itunes made mp3 massive.

That's a good question... What's the graphic engine of Chrome OS? Obviously not X11

Freedom comes with it's own risks.
You can't go "off the grid", yet expect nanny states to protect you. The point of taking that risk is avoiding governments eyes, or paypals freezing your money, yet having digital transfers and the the security of not having cash stack at home.

Can somebody explain how opening your wallet to receive an NFT allows the "phishers" to drain the wallets? That makes no sense... even if they scam was making them "pay" for those tokens, how were they completely drained?

Then, why the dislike?

The issue is that transaction commissions are prohibitively expensive for the small player. Regulated exchanges might be a solution to this.

Should the could seize them, with a 5 dollar wrench. The question is, does de FBI involve themselves in such practices? Is there precedence of such abuses?

Assuming immediate transactions ( that eliminate the need of an escrow service) nothing (besides law) prevents you from doing p2p transactions for cash / services. And if the bitcoins have an illicit origin, not breaking the financial law is the least of your worries.

You could receive payment into a new wallet, unrelated to you transaction history. So that "giving a face" to a wallet doesn't deanonymize all transactions.