The way the law is structured, you are never buying copies of digital goods, regardless of the format in which you obtain them. Instead, you buy a license to use the digital good under the specific terms and conditions of that license. That is why if you get a disk with GNU utils on it from the FSF, you are still bound by the GPL in what you can do with the data on that disk.

Just like they obviously did the research on the Apple VisionPro and that is inevitably going to be the next big computing device, right?

I think the research is exactly what's happening right now (or will once it launches).

Now, as to how plausible this is, we'll actually get into semantics. To me, saying that "gravity is quantum" would mean that it is a real force/interaction, and that this force obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, I wouldn't say "gravity is quantum" if it turns out that the Entropic gravity theory is true, as in that theory gravity is only an apparent interaction. However, I admit that this may only be my perception of what these terms mean together, and that others may use "gravity is quantum" to refer to any theory that explains the macroscopic effects we call gravity in a way that matches quantum theories.

A: If gravity is quantum, then (B) there must be some particle-like think that we call a graviton that mediates the interactions, and then seeing a rubidium atom fall must have been an interaction with this particle.

not A: If gravity is not quantum, then they are making no claims about a graviton.

If you think gravity is not quantum, then you go to the "not A" branch, and they make no claims about that branch - so there is no contradiction with their IF.

Now, say we have an experiment where two different sources each fire one electron in some direction; and say the electrons have the same spin and other properties except for their initial position and momentum. We can meaningfully say that for a certain location between the two sources there is some > 0 probability for either electron to be there, so the amplitude of each electron's wavefunction at that position is > 0. However, that doesn't mean we can ever find both electrons at that same postion at the same time: the individual wavefunctions are just parts of the two-electron system's wavefunction, and, per the Pauli exclusion principle, that one will be 0 for any state of the form "electron A at position x and electron B at position x". So, for any position, you can find either electron there, but never both.

An additional wrinkle is that this only applies for two identical electrons. If the electrons have different spins, then they can actually be found at the same location at the same time. You can have a spin-up and a spin-down electron in the same place at the same time, but not two spin-up electrons. This is the fundamental property of fermions. However, you can have any number of identical photons at the same location - that's the fundamental property of bosons.

The only way this statement could be false would be to have quantum gravity but no particle that mediates this interaction - which doesn't seem plausible almost by definition.

Many trademarks are indeed more or less global.

> A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records.

That's irrelevant - Apple Computers owns the Apple trademark (for certain industries).

> The lack of more namespaces also led to things like nissan.com being owned by Uzi Nissan (and now his family, I assume) rather than the car company.

It's not perfect and not guaranteed to be unique, yes. But people's names have many orders of magnitude more collisions.

> @.name as an email address.

No, you'd at best get `??@firstname.lastname.name` as your email address. Which, again, is irrelevant, as it's impossible to say which of the many thousands of Firstname Lastname people this might belong to.

> (The cultural aspect is irrelevant - it was not enforcing a specific order. If people wanted to register lastname.firstname.com, nothing would stop that)

I wasn't referring to a specific order, but to the cultural idea that people have 1 firstname and 1 lastname. In Spain, for example, people typically have 1 first name and 2 last names - but you couldn't get `a.b.c.name` as an address. Having a first name, a middle name, and a last name is also very common.

There are also cultures where people simply have one name, not first + last. For example, a person's full legal name in Tibet might just be "Woeser".

That's a silly idea. While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google", so that it's relatively unambiguous who `google.com` should refer to, there is no uniqueness whatsoever to personal names. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people called "John Smith", so the FQDN `john.smith.name.` would not really tell you anything.

This is without even going into the fact that "first-name.last-name" is culturally specific (though, to be fair, a large proportion of cultures in the world use this format).

I don't think I can imagine what you mean here. How would my compilation success depend on whether an Admin has given me the right to read or write to a certain path?

Do you get a huge list of capability keys when you log into the system, one for each path? Do you ask a service for a capability when you want to perform the action?