That’s fine as long as it can self reference.

And to calculate the offset needed to get them all synced up involves calculating time dilation, which involves knowing/assuming the speed of light. These synchronizations work just as well if the two way speed of light is different than the one way speed of light.

To know the speed of light you assume the speed of light is c, but you’re trying to calculate c so all those clocks aren’t verified synced.

Just read through the wiki or Harvard’s books if you’d like, this is an unsolved “problem” in physics for a reason or do you think no one cares about how fast c is?

See also This or, more accessibly “Synchronization conventions”

It is impossible to synchronize the clocks in such a way that you can actually measure the speed of light with it due to time dilation unless you define beforehand how fast the speed of light is to calculate that time dilation.

See also This or, more accessibly “Synchronization conventions”

The very accurate clock needed in this case is physically impossible as far as we know, there’s no way to measure it as far as our current understanding of physics goes.

Though if you can figure out a way you should publish a paper about it.

And further down:

Unfortunately, if the one-way speed of light is anisotropic, the correct time dilation factor becomes , with the anisotropy parameter κ between -1 and +1.[17] This introduces a new linear term, (here ), meaning time dilation can no longer be ignored at small velocities, and slow clock-transport will fail to detect this anisotropy. Thus it is equivalent to Einstein synchronization.

This is slighlty different though, we only know the two-way speed of light, not the one way speed of light.

We only know that this trip, to and back, takes x seconds. We cannot prove that the trip to the mirror takes the same length of time as the way back.

The special theory of relativity for example does not depend on the one way speed of light to be the same as the two way speed of light.

Wiki

There’s a significant detail which is missing from this analysis. The law which puts copyright over privacy is a French law, not an EU law. The EU court found that the French law doesn’t contradict any EU law.

So the EU court did not determine that copyright is more important than privacy. It determined only that the French parliament is allowed to decide that question for France.

So while this does set a bad precedence, it is not as bad as the title would like you to believe.

They do have a tab bar now, though it’s recent.

doesn’t support multi tab browsing

What do you mean? Having multiple tabs open at once?

EOL

IANAL: The short of it is that unless Samsung can prove that it’s the software’s fault that the malfunction is there, they have to repair it. A blown efuse is just as much proof as the ‘warranty broken if removed’ stickers, which is none.

There’s lot’s of cases online where Samsung/resellers try to stop people but as long as you are persistent and don’t just accept them not wanting to fix it they will repair it.

There’s also some cases of going through the small claims court to handle this (which doesn’t cost anything if you win) Small claims court

More about warranty

Also: This ONLY applies to the normal EU warranty which you always have, any extended warranty does not need to repair your device if you’ve rooted it.

In the EU at least Samsung can’t make a fuss either.

How does a search engine being offline interrupt a device flashing?

It doesn’t though? IANAL but as far as I can tell you can fork, modify and redistribute it as long as you provide the source code to your users.

It’s AGPL-3.0 so… https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-agpl-3-0

For now

That’s not Firefox forcing you to update, you had Firefox open while you (/your package manager) was updating Firefox and after the update was done Firefox needs to be reopened. To prevent this you just have to …not update Firefox while it is running.

Can’t Improve Upon Perfection

Yes it seems to have infinite energy but the throughput is limited to 2g of acceleration, unless you give it infinite time as well it will not reach c, though it would approach it.

Doing some calculation the final speed of 33kg, falling in 2g, for 70 years, without friction is “only” 99.77% the speed of light.

Edit: Forgot to convert the 0.9977c to percent.

Well, yes. We don’t know if the measurement we take is the result of a wave form collapse (we caused it) or the result of someone else having measured it, which would giving us the oposite value that they measured. We can’t tell if someone “sent” information or if it was the random result and we have no way to chose what value we (or the other end) gets when we collapse it.

This isn’t easy to explain over text so I’d recommend watching this video, specifically chapter “How to exploit?” as the visuals make it easier to understand.

Basically as far as we can tell there there is no information traveling at FTL speed so it just works? All information that is traveling is just as fast as c or slower.

“Certain phenomena in quantum mechanics, such as quantum entanglement, might give the superficial impression of allowing communication of information faster than light. According to the no-communication theorem these phenomena do not allow true communication; they only let two observers in different locations see the same system simultaneously, without any way of controlling what either sees.” link

“In physics, the no-communication theorem or no-signaling principle is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer.” link