Now all the rights holders groups have to do is use this new law to declare the alleged violator to be a pirate site to force American ISPs to block them.

I asked a fairly simple question, best answered by someone with experience dealing with HIPAA requirements. Since third parties are being entrusted with patient data as a part of this proposed program (authorized by whom exactly, I don't know), HIPAA would apply unless the law has exceptions. Normally patient data must be signed over by the patient each time it is handed to a new party. The law is designed to prevent sharing of patient data unless the patient actively participates in each transfer. Any third party that participates in this sharing of data could run afoul of HIPAA, and the executive branch which seems to be promoting this program would be unable to save them from lawsuits or penalties/fines levied by other branches of government.

People want to push the "Trump bad" narrative, but the fact remains that his administration can't and won't stop courts from beating up companies from sharing medical data with only one authorization. The most Trump could do is issue pardons or commutations for those facing criminal penalties (assuming anyone can even be charged criminally for HIPAA violations).

Apparently that isn't a option.

No, that won't happen. Now you're just being silly.

Not really. Most mosquitoes are harmless to humans. Targeting those responsible for the spread of disease would have little, if any effect on the food chain.

That isn't an answer. Try again, this time without the hyperbole.

If the DMCA has taught us anything, it's that so-called "rights holders" can and will abuse systems designed to operate based on their complaints. This entire bill seems to permit DMCA-style takedowns on entire domains.

How do they get around HIPAA with this?

Yes, this idea is not new.

You are correct. That's precisely how MWI is thought to work.

The premise of the argument is that, to conserve superposition information, you would necessarily need to prove that it would be grouped with information QM requires to be conserved, when viewed in a space that permitted it to be conserved. If it isn't, then there's no mechanism to preserve it, so no MWI.

No, because the paradox relies on infinitesimals, which have no cogmate in the material world.

Not strictly correct. You would be correct for all consequences over any statistically significant timeframe, but (a) I've purposefully included things that aren't actually outcomes, and (b) over extremely short timeframes (femtoseconds and attoseconds), differences would emerge very briefly, because different mechanisms take different routes.

Remember, the maths only concerns itself with outcomes, not the path taken, so identical maths will be inevitable for non-identical paths.

I would contend that it should be possible to find an implication of each interpretation that only exists in that interpretation. If, for example, Many Worlds is true, then it necessitates that any sort of information cannot be destroyed and vice versa, when considering the system as a whole. If Many Worlds is false, then superposition information is lost when superposition collapses, you cannot recover from the collapsed wave a complete set of all superposition states that existed. I'm sure that someone will point out that superposition isn't information in some specific sense, but that is the whole point. Many Worlds is impossible if you can show that superposition ISN'T the sort of information that IS conserved, because Many Worlds requires, by its very nature, that it is.

This gives us a test that does not require us to look into other universes and can be done purely by theoreticians. If you regard the system as a 5D system, then is that information conserved or not? Yes or no. If yes, then that does not "prove" Many Worlds, but it does mean that only interpretations that preserve that information in some form are viable. If no, then Many Worlds, and all other interpretations that preserve that information in some form, are ergo impossible. Instead of filling out questionaires on what you think is likely, try to prove that it can't be possible and see if you succeed.

I would also argue that physicists thought that the Lorenz contraction was a neat bit of maths by mathematicians that had nothing to do with reality, until Einstein cottoned onto the fact that it actually did. You cannot trust physicists who have an innate dislike of mathematics. This doesn't mean that maths always represents reality, but it does mean that it does so unreasonably often and unreasonably well.

This message is known to the state of California to cause cancer.

No, we aren't. A plutocracy? Maybe. Oligarchy? No.