If no-one ever gets more than a stern talking to, then clearly there is no line. These actions are as close to adhering to policy as you can get without saying it outright.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre#Investigation_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 (there is even less to see about the aftermath here: everyone got a medal)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike (this time someone was disciplined)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_1802

I don't believe that it is. I follow this "scene" pretty closely, and that means I read about successful scams all the time. They happen in huge numbers. Yet I have never encountered a reliable report of one that utilized a "sideloaded"[1] malicious app. Not once. Phishing email messages and web sites, sure. This change will not help counter those, though.

I don't even see what you could accomplish with a malicious app that you couldn't otherwise. I would certainly be interested to hear of any real world cases demonstrating the danger.

[1] When I was a kid, this was called "installing."

While most characters might be encodable as a single code point, Python does not normalize strings, so there is no guarantee that even relatively normal characters are actually stored as single code points.

Try this in Python:

  s = "a\u0308"
  print(s)
  print(s[0])

  ä
  a

Merriam-Webster: "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" and "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause" [1]

Cambridge Dictionary: "information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions" [2]

Wikipedia (quoting Encyclopedia Britannica): "Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented." [3]

Wikipedia further quotes NATO's 2011 guidance for military public affairs definition: "information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly" [4]

I think that OP's use of the word is well in line with each of those definitions.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/propagan...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Definitions

No, I do not consider a document to be a part of another document, unless it's embedded in the other document. I don't, for example, consider the RFC 2822 [1] to be a part of the RFC 5322 [2] event though they are obviously related and the latter refers (and, indeed, links) to the former. If, in a conversation about the 5322, someone quoted the 2822 without providing a reference to it, I would find it confusing.

As for "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, I'll have to admit that I don't have much experience with them, but from what I believe I know about them, I'd say that I would not consider the whole book to be a single document when it comes to referencing. Would it make sense to say something like "The adventure in the book ends with you caught by the security guard" if that is just one of the many alternative endings, one that many might not encounter when playing?

And expanding on that, would you consider it appropriate referencing to say "That is a crime according to the French criminal law" without specifying where it says that? (I'm assuming here that the French criminal law is a single document.)

The other example is interesting. I would consider a wrong (or broken) link to be an error in the document, but I would not consider erroneous statements in the linked document to be inaccuracies or errors in the linking document. Imagine that instead of an outdated policy, the linked document was one promoting homeopathy. Would you say that the original document contains misleading statements about healthcare? I would not.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2822

[2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322

Mind you, I'm not defending jabiko here – I responded to the following comment: "Welcome to the web. Pages often have hyperlinks that can be followed to see related information." which I did not find reasonable.

[1] https://news.alaskaair.com/on-the-record/alaska-statement-on...

[2] https://www.alaskaair.com/content/advisories/travel-advisori...

I think that might count as libel.

I imagine they would have eventually converged on USB anyway, but when the upcoming rules (or "rules") were announced, you definitely could not count on being able to charge your phone using anyone else's charger (or one of the many that had come with your previous phones).

Counterfactuals are tricky, and we'll never know for sure what might have been, but seeing laptop manufacturers dragging their feet, I really can't see how you could feel so certain that the market would have fixed the mess that existed just as quickly.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_1... (search for "ultimatum"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_Nestl%C3%A9

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiquita#Criticism

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_plc#Controversies

According to Wikipedia[1], "In 1990, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) defined (software) reverse engineering (SRE) as "the process of analyzing a subject system to identify the system's components and their interrelationships and to create representations of the system in another form or at a higher level of abstraction" in which the "subject system" is the end product of software development." It goes on to clarify that "Reverse engineering can be performed from any stage of the product cycle, not necessarily from the functional end product."

Further, "There are two components in reverse engineering: redocumentation and design recovery."

Are you arguing that the work here does not fit the definition or that the definition is wrong? In the latter case, could you please share your definition, and maybe even explain why it is superior to IEEE's?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Software

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launcher...

If you don't have it, you could try to do the math yourself. Munroe assumes that 1) an arrow intercepts 40 cm² of sunlight, 2) an archer looses 8 to 10 arrows a minute and 3) each arrow spends an average of three seconds in flight. You could adjust those numbers to taste, but I would not expect the conclusion to change.

[1] https://xkcd.com/what-if/