If you're not a liberal at 20... https://quoteinvestigator.com/...

At least that choice is up to the user. I'm less worried about other devices on my own account than about how the data gets to those devices. Who can see my paste buffer in transit? Otherwise, I can see the convenience.

No one seems to have pointed out this portion of TFA:

"During a time of great technical innovation in aviation — when fighters planes became fighter jets, and later super-sonic fighter jets — the design of the cockpit became more and more decisive in determining whether a pilot could stay ahead of the plane and successfully execute the mission, or whether the plane would get ahead of the pilot and fly out of control."

The nature and reliability of how this was determined is left unexplained, but it does at least clearly state the basis for the argument -- that cockpit dimensions played a large role in a pilot's ability simply to fly the plane.

I would agree in principle. Though if the government is able to obtain said keys from someone other than yourself, they weren't really "private", were they?

You're not the only one. I wish more authors would put some thought into their graphs. In particular, I find it helpful when the legend is in some sort of order that corresponds to the graph. At least then I can correlate labels by position.

Hence the reason it will never be "proven". I guess I was too subtle.

Would this indicate new physics if proven?

Maybe, but it would really shake up the scientific method...

The video zoomed in on the crane, so it's hard to tell, but I wonder if the recovery chute inflated and yanked it off the crane. That, or it deployed after the initial failure, but it becomes visible and semi-inflated later. At the least, I'd guess it was the chute that did the dragging rather than the balloon itself.

TFA is confused. Later on, they refer to state bans of hand-held phones. (Yeah, I broke down and RTFA for that one).

It is an interesting attack, and IANAL, but I'd be curious about the legal ramifications. If I slip a carbon (ah... the way-back machine) in a stack of papers and ask someone to sign the top one without thus informing them, I think my stealth probably invalidates the additional document(s).

You could argue that there's a noticeable difference between pen and carbon -- making the copy hard to enforce -- but I'd argue the digital version is even easier: at least in the PS example, both "copies" of the document need to be present to preserve the hash.

In normal (pen/paper) signature situations, I get a copy of what I signed. The same ought to apply to digital sigs, resulting in a simple legal challenge to the validity of the document.