A lot of legal constructs are defined by intent, and intent is always something that is potentially hard to prove.

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

So the fact that they tried to recruit SJ (twice) is that evidence that I find suspicious. Plus Altmans tweets. It's not suspicious, it's obvious.

I think that reaches too far. Intent should be a defining part of impersonation. IANAL and I don't know what the law says.

Intent on whose part, though? Like, supposing in arguendo that the company's goal was to make the voice sound indistinguishable from SJ's in Her, but they wanted to maintain plausible deniability, so instead cast as wide a net as possible during auditions, happened upon an actor who they thought already sounded indistinguishable from SJ without special instruction, and cast that person solely for that reason. That seems as morally dubious to me as achieving the same deliberate outcome by instruction to the performer.

> happened upon an actor who they thought already sounded indistinguishable from SJ without special instruction, and cast that person solely for that reason

so who was doing the selecting, and were they instructed to perform their selection this way? If there was a law suit, discovery would reveal emails or any communique that would be evidence of this.

If, for some reason, there is _zero_ evidence that this was chosen as a criteria, then it's pretty hard pressed to prove the intent.

> which in this case would simply be appending the namespace name to the identifier

surely not. How do you differentiate these two functions?

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

[I meant to write prepend, but that doesn't change the argument]

You would mangle it as something like foo$N depending on the platform.

How do you define a buffer overflow?

I speculate, but there might also be a part where simply more people suffered from heat strokes in the past when extreme temperatures occurred. So part of the answer of "how did people live before ACs were invented?" is that some didn't.

My observation is that Vietnamese people know about the risk of heat stroke and how to avoid it.

You won’t see people walking around outside during the hottest hours (9am to 5pm). People are in the shade, avoid physical activity.

There are some manual laborers working outside at those hours, but they are covered from head to toe to protect against the sun and take frequent breaks in the shade.

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

It will be 35C with 50% humidity (41C heat index) and they aren’t sweating.

I don't doubt that general heat tolerance isn't real for the healthy part of the population. However the hottest days could hit elderly and unhealthy people especially hard (or even the healthy, if it's especially hot).

> 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's only really about the intent of the voice to sound like the original. Reaching out to the originals first implies intent, so it makes the case easier.

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

Impersonating is defined by intent. "Just find someone who sounds like her" implies intent.

Nitpick: it's not copyright, it's personality rights and likeness. It's a violation of it nonetheless.

Love the data driven approach through graph clustering, instead of jumping into opinionated refactoring.

Right. But you also get a recent one if you just use the Mozilla PPA, without snap. Debian sid also ships 126, and I assume the fix should be backported to Firefox LTS, which is used by stable.

I don't see the relevance of snap here.