AdelaideSimone

Stop payment isn't the same as a chargeback, though.

Contract law is rather a mess, but, IIRC, one the main, generic exceptions to contract clause enforcement is if is illegal, unconscionable, or violates public policy.

Many states have codified tort laws as being in the interest of public policy (e.g. most consumer protection acts). If this person were to sue under such a statute, it allows courts discretion in nullifying clauses like this arbitration clause.

I'm sure they do fail, but at least they have the theoretical ability for citizens to more directly challenge crimes comitted by the government itself. Unlike the U.S., which removed it by statutes, most other common law countries, and all civil law countries, citizens retain the ability to force criminal prosecution (either by private prosecution or by appeal to a magistrate with proof a crime has been committed).

I don't know if you're trying to say that, in the realm of tort law, it is only strict liability, or if you are saying that copyright infringement is only a tort. If it's the latter, it's completely untrue, as there are criminal copyright infringement statutes.

Arbitrarily redefining words so that you can make an otherwise fallacious argument is called equivocation. Ends do not always justify means.

Very overweight people, ironically, have good muscle development -- if they are ambulatory. Having to move all of that weight around builds muscle.

I don't know how easy it is in Germany compared to the U S., but this is false. In the U.S., you absolute can sue (and it is extremely common) to force certain actions. See: constructive trust, mandatory injunction, prohibitive injunction, specific performance, recission, writ.

In all likelihood, you would not receive the source code in the U.S., though. If deadset against release, the outcome would likely be that the offender would be fined and injoined from any further distribution.

And why do you think pathos arguments are logical? Granted, they didn't cite them, but assuming it is true, empirical studies showing the accident rates are the logical point from which to draw conclusions. What you would like, how you and others feel about it, and what you would expect are meaningless.

You're also equivocating. They made it extremely clear they are referring to hobbyist and other such groups with vague or unknown qualifications; whereas, you go in and make stipulated claims about small businesses with certified mechanics, etc. These two are clearly not the same category, making your argument non-responsive. It's also contradictory in terms of discussed liabilities and such, as the small company, and its mechanics, that whoever worked with, would have liability as well, as opposed to the "random git repo".

A lot of vendors use non-lazy binding for security reasons, and some platforms don't support anything other than RTLD_NOW (e.g., Android).

Anyway, while what you said is theoretically half-true, a fairly large number of libraries are not designed/encapsulated well. This means almost all of their symbols are exported dynamically, so, the idea that there are only "few public exported symbols" is unfortunately false.

However, something almost no one ever mentions is that ELF was actually designed to allow dynamic libraries to be fairly performant. It isn't something I would recommend, as it breaks many assumptions on Unices, (while you don't get the benefits of LTO) you can achieve code generation almost equivalent to static linking by using something like "-fno-semantic-interposition -Wl,-Bsymbolic,-z,now". MaskRay has a good explanation on it: https://maskray.me/blog/2021-05-16-elf-interposition-and-bsy...

What exactly is it you're "right" about? How do you think any libc wrapper or direct syscall works? Syscalls are filtered for security reasons on many platforms, including Android. I mean, a syscall is literally an API itself to get a kernel's internals to do something for you.

What you're suggesting is, as someone else said, non-sensical. Phrased without invincible ignorance, it's equivalent to saying, "Android prevents you from creating a new OS kernel to supplant its own control over hardware access," which is true of basically any OS. How helpful or secure would it be if you could make 0 guarantees about how your hardware is used?

You can do direct hardware access through drivers that are integrated/interfaced with the kernel somehow, but this still is not an entirely arbitrary access, and is still going through the kernel in a way.

"quite technically illiterate"*.