Sometimes one large corporation feels like working with multiple smaller vendors. Products are too siloed and don't work together the way they claim, etc.
Yes. If you want your vendors to interop with each other in any way, it's the same n^2 lines of communication problem you have in dev teams. In fact, it's worse, because the vendors are antagonistic towards each other - it's in their interests that you ditch some of the others and give more of your business to them.
That depends on the vendor. Small vendors know that they can't do everything and are happy they are part of the pie. Medium sized often dream of getting big and so if they think they can by taking a large slice they will.
It also depends on how your relationship is structured and what you demand. I work for a very large company, but some of our customers won't even look at us until we pass a third party interoperability certification, and thus getting that certification becomes critical to us even though most customers don't care. Once we are certified interoperability issues are rare (they happen all the time because of the sear number of customers, but most of the time things just work because everyone is following the standard). The standard and certification has been refined over a couple decades now and so most of the things that can go wrong either are either updated in the standard and certification test; or they are at least tribal knowledge of "don't do that it won't work"
You just described the nr. 1 reason why people hate fire alarms.
Even though we all agree they are prudent, you rarely meet people for whom checking battery health is part of the routine is they go on holiday. The audible chirp (and eventual full out false alarm) is just horrible user interface for not-so exceptional use case.
> The productivity benefits of automation have not led to a 15-hour workweek, as predicted by economist John Maynard Keynes in 1930, but instead to "bullshit jobs": "a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case".
Plus coding (producing a working program that fits some requirement) is the least interesting part of software development. It adds complexity, bugs and maintenance.
I think the main motivation for adding move semantics to c++11 was performance. Ie. Eliminate superfluous copy constructors when passing a std::string temporary into a function.
Std::move, std::forward are neat, though somewhat cumbersome compared to Rust. C++ scope, lifetime plus the fact that std::move doesn't actually move are real footguns.
There have been attempts to add destructive moves (Circle) but it's a long way from Rust's ergonomics.
I concur with op that default move semantic is where rust shines.
I think the OP framing is about the enterprise / government framing, so Adobe maybe isn't the best example.
Still, the licence doesn't matter - while probably being a bit of an overstatement - is somewhat true. If my enterprise relies on an Adobe service, it's primarily about my relationship with them, not the product license.
... But of course, product price and therefore revenue will decline if competitors can sell my product too or customers can download and use it for free.
Sure, but primary intent is open to interpretation too.
Dig down deep enough and you'll find the very core of computers is about making copies. Colloquially we speak about moving data across memory or transferring it over a network swap a buffer to disk, but that's not what happens. We make copies and often, but not always, abandon the original.
So it's always been kind of hair splitting to discern between different kinds of copying. Piracy and fair use, owning a software vs having a license to use it - it's a gray area.
and I wager about a million kids, people who can't afford games, or just self-righteous pirates are the ones who engage in copying data. Primary intent can be warped by consumer usage, even if the original ideals were noble (see: Bitcoin).
That's probably why some philantropist doesn't want to try and challenge matters like DMCA. It may only make things worse.
See also "Ruby has previously been turned away by Norway, Sweden and Lithuania, as well as facing restrictions imposed by Denmark while crossing the Baltic Sea, because of her dangerous cargo." from this page:
Echoing from comments, most likely the image is scaled down and / or only fingerprints (think: Shazaam) are uploaded.
While the latter allows remote party to gauge what you're looking at it most likely doesn't infringe copyrights. But, as you mention, it might very well violate some of the HDCP fine print.
Let's suppose that is true, because it is. But how is that different from any other entreprise, commercial or public?
reply