At most the obviousness should the burden of discovery on them, and if they have no records or witnesses that would demonstrate the intent, then they should be in the clear.

> I would start to collect a LOT of paperwork documenting that the casting selection was done without a hint of bias towards a celebrity's impression.

IMO having records that explicitly mention SJ or Her in any way would be suspicious.

IANAL

surely not. How do you differentiate these two functions?

  void fooN(void);
  
  namespace N { void foo(void); }

> Many people live without AC, and even those with it often won’t use it except for the hottest few days of the year.

That can still make a lot of difference.

It would be harder to find a case if they simply just hired someone that sounds similar, but if they did that with the intention to sound like the original that's still impersonation, only it's harder to prove.

If they just happened to hire someone that sounded like the original, then that's fair game IMO.

IANAL

I don't see the relevance of snap here.

The declaration of the pointer ip,

  int *ip;

K&R C

  return '⊥'

I vaguely remember an article about a bike race photo finish that showed that this is not a given and reverse engineered where the camera was pointing (based on background) and who the likely winner was.

edit: found it https://www.tglyn.ch/blog/amstel_gold/

That should cover at least the notification side. If I can't bank on a mostly open-source mobile OS than I would rather just not bank on mobile at all. Banking on stock ROM is not an option for me.

In general I agree with the sentiment, use AddressSanitizer in testing/debugging. However it's not meant to be a hardening option, AFAIK, so I advise against using it in production (along with other sanitizers), even if you can live with the performance hit.