> For repositories attached to production services, we have historically had robust durable ownership, but for repositories with no associated service, there was no reliable way to tell who the owner is.
Unless you have an elected position or the position needs to be filled ignoring the wishes of the local group that would select a replacement that is kind of true.
Local elections have real value.
But splintering a government entity just because you can isn't automatically better.
For instance who pays for the last mile? Who pays for the first mile? With a federal program it doesn't matter the answer is the same. With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state.
You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete.
Germany is 4% of America in size. A single US state with decent population density wouldn't need a nationalized system either.
The USPS gets a monopoly because it is required to go everywhere. If a private company doesn't want to go into Michigan it doesn't have to.
Without a monopoly protection USPS goes from being slightly unprofitable to very unprofitable by companies competing only in cheap areas.
Basically USPS needs $0.78 to mail a one ounce letter overall. However it doesn't need that much for you to mail within the same city, it is probably much less than that.
But they do need it if you send a letter across the country.
You are generally guarding against the device being shutdown.
Anything assuming the OS is running is already into "well that is easy" territory since if the OS is running those keys are in the same place as this attack leverages.
You need to only have the ability to execute code after the hibernation not before and the machine needs to be permanently unavailable to the user after.
As I said quite rare situations.
If you can read this kind of data you have the ability to run code which means you already owned the entire operating system making capturing the key next entry beyond trivial.
You don't need to spoof anything, we assume here you can read the key from RAM remember.
If you could execute code before hibernation you similarly already had the key.
You need to get quite specific on actual attacks to call this insecure to be clear.
Having access to the raw RAM of a machine suspended but demanding the key to resume is certainly possible but the number of attacks where you don't need this bug is "almost all of them" given at that point if the machine ever unlocks you won in this hypothetical attack even with a bug fix.
What capital gains? The governments balance sheet doesn't matter...
Think of it like the original Bitcoin wallet, its value is $0 because none of those will ever be sold.
If dividends are involved it could matter but the government basically gets 20% of dividends already and extra 4% doesn't make a huge difference.
Returning to blocking stock buybacks as price manipulation and forcing businesses to give out dividends again would actually impact revenue in a meaningful way in contrast.
> These should never be sold and then taken away with no compensation like this.
I don't think it is reasonable to bundle those ideas together.
Companies renegading on their promise of perpetual access is not the same thing as a right to resell at all
Right to resell is just going to warp game prices in a way that is bad for everyone
After all how do new games compete with used games in that setup? Given the way engagement with games works there will basically always be spare copies
Key sales already happen at below new game value at nearly all times and that is unused games
> they can ban you which deprives you of being able to use what you bought
Also not the same thing at all, bad behavior removing access and no refund is normal
> that should come with requirements that the company must provide full compensation of the purchase price
Ah yes cheating in an MMO results in a full refund of all money paid that wouldn't be abused by anyone
Unfortunately the group that has the most control doesn't care.
The majority of anything around DMCA is likely legitimate complaints so dealing with it is weird, since making it more painful for content producers to protect themselves is unpopular.
Especially since you would need a bond system and penalties beyond actual damages (such as legal fees) since most of the worst cases have very nebulous actual damages.
> Sometimes, hardware is cheaper than human coordination.
A t3.small on AWS costs $182.21 a year before any discounts and has 2 CPUs and 2 GB of RAM.
So the computer to run the example at the start costs 3 hours of Engineering time.
This has... Warping effects on how hardware performance is perceived to put it mildly.
If you spend 4 hours halving that cost it takes multiple years to reclaim that investment.
Not that performance doesn't matter of course, reducing your total spend by a percentage is worthwhile, but micro optimizations become difficult when hardware is cheap and performant.