But to buy that home/land from the previous owner you have to sign a contract stating you can't leave the HOA and that when you sell you only sell to those who will join the HOA and contract.

This goes back to the construction company/realtor investing to build the entire suburb and putting down the roads and such.

> you have to sign a contract

You have the right idea, but there isn’t a contract that a buyer has to sign.

A restrictive covenant is attached to a property when a developer (e.g., of a condo complex or subdivision) deeds a subject property to an initial buyer. The restrictions “run with the land” and are enforceable against any subsequent buyer. (The restrictions are a public record kept with the county recorder, so any buyer is on “record notice” whether they actually knew about them or not.)

Also, the way most HOAs work, there is no joining just as there is no opting out. You are a member if you own a subject property. That’s it.

I mainly know about California, but it should be similar in other states.

I wonder how many times this way of doing contracts was tested in the Supreme Court

You generally want to prevent a crowd from getting to that point. It's a bit difficult for a handful of police to stop a crowd from lynching as it's happening.

It's a slippery slope, though. Should we criminalize kitchen knives because by the time someone starts stabbing someone it's too late?

Or opens it! Since nobody can now accuse you of doing witchcraft.

That's one way of turning a vice into a virtue... "Right, I've been found out to have fabricated years of research, entire PhDs are now junk. How can I make some more money out of this?"

Same as discredited politicians writing memoirs, WallStreet fraudsters turning into anti-fraud consultants, etc

Define counterfeit, as some lobbyists would define it by replacing a single resistor, capacitor or fuse, an independent repair shop turns a mac into a pc.

Besides, counterfeit products comingling has never bother amazon before, so why now?

It still doesn't bother Amazon, apple had to pay them to care

From what I understand, when they plan to land on the Moon or Mars, they won't have a flame trench setup (on the Moon/Mars), so it needs to be able to land and take off from the ground.

Yeah but there's a huge difference between fully loaded in earth's gravity and (a smaller stage) partially empty in less gravity.

Moon or Mars would only get the second stage of the starship, with 9 engines (was it?), not the super-heavy with dozens. So, it's okay to only have the flame trench on Earth.

Would it be possible to construct a file/system encryption scheme where you have a read-write passcode and a read-only passcode? Such that when given the read-only passcode it would allow (legal/valid) searches by law enforcement, but not (easily) allow fabrication of evidence by planting incriminating files?

I suppose you could make it part of a signature scheme for files (file written by passcode X) so that your defense could point to the discrepancy in your favour.

Any backdoor made for law enforcement will eventually land in the hands of bad actors, and sometimes those backdoors will be used illegally by law enforcement.

The proposal is kind of the opposite. It's a restricted mode intended for use by law enforcement.

It's a practical feature in general, to allow anyone to poke through your phone without installing/posting/reconfiguring anything, occasionally nice to have. Then again, it would also slightly increase the social normalcy of being able to ask to snoop through other people's phones.

So they can use the banking app to transfer money away from your account because that's not stored locally on your phone? Or to look at your private photos?

Surely even banks/countries that do not have a stronger auth method require at least a password for login?

I think they mean two separate passcodes set by the user, same as a normal passcode

Public key encryption perhaps?

Private key for encryption, public key for decryption. You give the authorities the public key, they can't plant any data with it.

Probably something involving digital signatures on all files.

And what proves you didn't introduce the discrepancy yourself? (Since you'd benefit from it, it's quite plausible you would.)

If you mount an decrypted file system from another user, doesn't that make it inheritly read only if you are not a super user?

They probably already have lobbyists at the ready should these concerns appear as a blip on some political agenda. :(

Commons Configuration disabled the vulnerable parts by-default a couple of months ago.

I'm sure Intel will make sure they will be cheaper. Even if they have to run at a loss in the short run. :)

This is the benefit of real competition.