Is there an ELI5 version of this? I think the article tries, and it's always cool to see physics described from a different vantage point.

My ELI5 version would be: fields with a massive gauge boson are "dragged down" in energy by the mass of the boson, so interactions propagate as if they have negative energy. What does a negative energy wave propagation look like? Similar negative energy wave propagations in physics are evanescent waves and electron tunneling, both of which have exponential drop-off terms, so it makes sense to see an exponential factor in massive boson interactions.

This is literally true of every senior job role.

It seems like it's mostly software engineers that don't get this.

The encryption part of DRM systems is effectively the same as client-side SSL certificates with a secret SSL certificate. How well it's kept secret is defined in the compliance documents. This secret, plus a secure decoding and output path, are the engineering core of DRM systems.

Studios require "industry standard DRM" for movies and TV shows, with lesser requirements for SD. This effectively means "DRM backed by some entity with lots of money that we can sue if things go wrong". Studios approve each individual device that you serve to, usually with compliance targets at some particular future date for various existing loopholes.

Flash (Adobe Access) is somewhat different, and has an obfuscated method for generating the equivalent of a client cert, thus on laptops it's only rated for SD by most (all?) studios. Apparently studios don't care too much about people copying SD content.

Studios would theoretically approve watermarking DRM systems, but there are two major barriers: having a large (ahem, suable) company offering it, and some way to serve individualized media through a CDN. Neither seem likely. So nobody loses too much sleep about whether studios would actually approve watermarking.

EDIT: I reread the article replacing "Gen-X" with "youngin's", and it makes a lot more sense. Also, we were the last generation that could reasonably work their way through college without loans.

1. There is a clean pathway and dirty pathway for converting fructose to glycogen in the liver. The clean pathway is easily overloaded by consuming a lot of fructose at once. ("A lot" being more than 12 oz of soda, roughly.) The key bit is that the bad effects are non-linear.

2. The dirty pathway produces metabolites that cause the body's metabolism to switch to an imbalanced state, which if not corrected, leads to metabolic syndrome and type-II diabetes.

3. The dirty pathway is similar to alcohol consumption, with similar long-term effects. This is why he calls fructose a poison.

4. Dietary fiber slows down absorbtion of fructose, thus giving the liver more time to process fructose using the clean pathway. So an apple (fiber!) causes less of a fructose overload problem than a similar quantity of apple juice.

From this, Lustig hypothesises that metabolic syndrome is primarily caused by overconsumption of fructose, and that a diet that has low or zero fructose and high in fiber will correct metabolic syndrome. This is a testable hypothesis, and should be relatively easy to test, even by individuals.

My added notes:

1. There's lots of talk about "sugar", which is dumb, because "sugar" means different things to different people. Lustig means "fructose", which is present in sugar, HFCS, agave nectar, honey, all sweet fruits, fruit juices, etc.

2. Everyone's body, lifestyle, eating habits, exercise habits, and metabolic syndrome level is different, thus everyone will respond to fructose (and indeed any food) differently. If you care, learn how food works in your body and create a diet that fits your needs. And especially, don't extrapolate from your own experience to all people.

3. Several fad diets of recent years fit rather neatly into Lustig's recommendation, including Atkins, South Beach, mediterranean, raw vegan. If you care, find one that works for you.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

The second half is, of course, completely correct.

(Edit: please read "making shit up" as "your source is inaccurate")