11 year old

It's only called "class warfare" when we fight back.

DRM means authenticating through a server (someplace), correct?

DMCA defines a "technological measure which limits access" (what we informally refer to as "DRM") in 1201(a)(3)(b) as

a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Authenticating through a server is one way to implement DRM, but there are many other methods, where DMCA is every bit as applicable.

the DMCA is a thing... but can they do anything if they don't know about you copying/transcoding files to your phone or tablet or whatever?

Generally no, and especially with offline DRM schemes like what DVDs use, the copyright holder can't detect when you read the DVD, so right, you won't get caught. But of course the worst part of DMCA is not that it just prohibits doing things, but prohibits trafficking in tools for doing things. So the software for working with DVD DRM is illegal to create, distribute, sell, etc which means I-know-nothing-about-computers grandma would have to go off the mainstream.

If grandma is a punk rock computer user, no problem. But most people these days apparently want to go to a centralized authority (probably within their own legal jurisdiction) and just click to install things, and any centralized authority is going to be at least somewhat vulnerable to trafficking charges. Or if they solve that problem by being outside US jurisdiction, they might have payment processing issues.

Again, you're not wrong that you can do these things with DVDs (I see how being able to watch them on an unconnected-to-internet bus definitely helps, compared to proprietary streaming) but there are barriers keeping it from being a general solution for everyone. Media without DRM lacks this problem.

Big Bullshit Bill defunded a lot of Russian counter-intelligence, so I doubt that specifically is a concern.

Tie politicians to it.

> Elon Musk acknowledged on X in May 2024, a reusable orbital return heat shield is the "biggest remaining problem" to 100% rocket reusability.

The ghost of the Space Shuttle.

The Grizellians were okay with it, but they were well-rested.

being he speaks with no punctuation ... nor grammar.

Casper can be a pole-dancer, he has a nice boooty

Probably have to buy the "Enterprise Gold-Pro++ VIP Edition" to have it disabled.

It's their only road to profitability: lock in users to the Snoop Cloudy Cloud or else Android and Linux will slowly nibble away their business.

How does the pace of Trump's march into fascism compare with the pace of Hitler's and Mussolini's?

That's my question also. What law gives politicians and prosecutors the right to stick their fingers into the Wiki org?

For the sake of argument suppose the Wiki managers and paid editors are flaming biased bigots; that alone is not enough to prosecute an org. KKK is allowed to exist.

Can anyone name a specific law by identification and clause number?

Smart managers experiment to see if their grand ideas hold water. They could select a few offices for pilot project cutting and see how they do. Only if it's successful should they then widen the scope.

However, in this case Google is probably bleeding money and have to do something to trim the budget. This approach makes it look like a strategic re-org to investors instead of mere shrinking, and newbie investors often fall for gimmicks.

Can we at least agree they are quasi-utilities, and thus should be regulated like a quasi-utility?