ricecake

I disagree on this specific one. It's not an incredibly esoteric concept and is part of every legal dispute involving ownership of anything. It's legalese for "they don't own it, I own it".

I entirely agree with your main point.

Aside from that, the concept of "superior ownership" isn't something made up any time recently. It's the notion that there are different types of ownership and some of them take priority over others.
For example, if I have a watch, A steals the watch from me and sells it to you, and then B steals the watch from you, you, me and B all have a claim to it.
B possesses the watch so you need to prove they stole it to show you have a superior claim to ownership. You can show that you bought the watch fair and square from A, which means it looks like your claim is valid, but because it was stolen from me in the first place I have the best claim.

It's not a rich person making up a new legal principle, it's a rich person trying to use their money and lawyers to buy an outcome because they don't like one of the parties.

Ha! I didn't see that at first. I love "fuck you so hard that we can and will put a significant dollar value on it being more humiliating".

The assets were auctioned off to pay his debt to the families of the Sandy Hook shooting.
So effectively they gave money to the families of children killed in a school shooting that he slandered in cruel and vile ways.

Given that the families pretty reasonably dislike him, the added bonus of his creation being used to openly mock him and promote a message they endorse is quality icing on the cake.

Lives in the same building for one of the examples given. And we're not DAs, we get the benefit of OP telling us their state of mind and intent which involves very explicitly making choices of dress, behavior and demeanor for the explicit purpose of quite literally menacing women for his own amusement.

Difficult to prosecute doesn't make something legal.

Depends on jurisdiction, but in a fair number it would be "menacing".

A person is guilty of menacing when by some movement of body or any instrument the person intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.

That's Delaware's, but different states do it differently, and some out that classification under stalking.

Following someone around intentionally and knowingly causing them fear of injury is illegal. Why on earth would you even for a moment think you're allowed to do that? It's like thinking guns are legal so you can point your gun at someone on the street.

There's none. They would owe him money, so he'd have to get in line with all the other creditors to request that the court prioritize his debt over someone else's.

Oh, certainly. But common language has a term for high latency already, it's just not speed related. Everyone knows about a laggy connection on a phone or video call.

Fun fact: TCP has some implicit design considerations around the maximum cost of packet retransmission on a viable link that only works on roughly local planetary scale.
When NASA started to get out to Mars with the space Internet, they needed to tweak tcp to fit retransmission being proportionally much more expensive and let connections live longer before being "broken".

When talking communication, most people think of the speed with which a unit quantity of information is transmitted, not the latency of that transmission.
Referring to bandwidth as the speed of a communication system is pretty normal, even for people who know how to use the term bandwidth.

Yes, to a degree. A VPN protects you from an attacker on the same WiFi network as you and that's about it.

Most assaults on your privacy don't happen like that, and for the most part the attacks that do happen like that are stopped by the website using https and proper modern security.
The benefit of the VPN is that it puts some of that protection under your control, but only as far as your VPN provider.

A VPN is about as much protection from most cyber attacks as a gun is.

They're not a security tool, they're a networking tool. They let you do some network stuff securely, and done correctly they can protect from some things, but the point of them is "this looks like a small, simple LAN, but it's not".

It's much easier to package and sell network tools than security tools, and they're much more accepted by users, since security tools have a tendency to say "no" a lot, particularly when you might be doing something dumb,and users hate being told no, particularly when they're doing something dumb.

Depends on the vendor for the specifics. In general, they don't protect against an attacker who has gained persistent privileged access to the machine, only against theft.
Since the key either can't leave the tpm or is useless without it (some tpms have one key that it can never return, and will generate a new key and return it encrypted with it's internal key. This means you get protection but don't need to worry about storage on the chip), the attacker needs to remain undetected on the server as long as they want to use it, which is difficult for anyone less sophisticated than an advanced persistent threat.

The Apple system, to its credit, does a degree of user and application validation to use the keys. Generally good for security, but it makes it so if you want to share a key between users you probably won't be using the secure enclave.

Most of the trust checks end up being the tpm proving itself to the remote service that's checking the service. For example, when you use your phones biometrics to log into a website, part of that handshake is the tpm on the phone proving that it's made by a company to a spec validated by the standards to be secure in the way it's claiming.

Package signing is used to make sure you only get packages from sources you trust.
Every Linux distro does it and it's why if you add a new source for packages you get asked to accept a key signature.

For a long time, the keys used for signing were just files on disk, and you protected them by protecting the server they were on, but they were technically able to be stolen and used to sign malicious packages.

Some advanced in chip design and cost reductions later, we now have what is often called a "secure enclave", "trusted platform module", or a general provider for a non-exportable key.
It's a little chip that holds or manages a cryptographic key such that it can't (or is exceptionally difficult) to get the signing key off the chip or extract it, making it nearly impossible to steal the key without actually physically stealing the server, which is much easier to prevent by putting it in a room with doors, and impossible to do without detection, making a forged package vastly less likely.

There are services that exist that provide the infrastructure needed to do this, but they cost money and it takes time and money to build it into your system in a way that's reliable and doesn't lock you to a vendor if you ever need to switch for whatever reason.

So I believe this is valve picking up the bill to move archs package infrastructure security up to the top tier.
It was fine before, but that upgrade is expensive for a volunteer and donation based project and cheap for a high profile company that might legitimately be worried about their use of arch on physical hardware increasing the threat interest.