I don’t know about elsewhere in Canada, but here, Bell and Rogers compete directly in the mobile space, and Bell competes directly with cable, and all of those options have multiple resellers at half the price, thanks to CRTC.
Are the prices the lowest in the world? No. Can you tell a company to fuck off? Yes, you can.
I don’t know. The Canada described by OP might be a foreign land compared to the part of Canada I know.
The benefit of AI is overblown for a majority of product tiers. Remember how everything was supposed to be block chain? And metaverse? And web 3.0? And dot.com? This is just the next tech trend for dumb VCs to throw money at.
Marriage has all kinds of default legal implications ranging from property ownership to inheritance and tax benefits, and may also affect insurance rates.
How you are affected depends on where you live and your personal situation.
Frankly, a blanket statement like this is completely irresponsible. Consult a lawyer on these matters, people. Or spend tens of thousands of dollars later in life dealing with the consequences of ignoring your legal rights and responsibilities.
I’m pretty sure Windows is a key part of their “cloud stuff” strategy. You are right that consumers are not the direct focus of Windows, since they are not the direct paying audience, and that shows in the direction Windows is going, but getting consumers to use Windows is a big part of creating corporate buy in for Microsoft cloud services. Corporate environments will shun Microsoft cloud services if employees can’t use Windows, or Windows features run afoul of corporate policies (like blanket LLM bans).
The second part of this comment doesn’t make a lot of sense.
My understanding is that the tax system allows for the declaration of depreciation in assets as a business expense. This is fine for assets with transparent market valuations.
The part where this system could be abused is in willfully withholding the release of a movie, overvaluing the expected revenue, and then subsequently declaring the lack of revenue as a depreciation in assets which is then declared as a business expense to reduce the tax burden.
A clearer example of this, with very obvious fraud, might be:
So obviously this example was fraudulous. It’s possible that the expected revenue on the cases involving movies was estimated transparently and was fair, because of market forces.
Maybe something more scummy was at play?
Who knows.
You should perhaps skim through https://docs.docker.com/storage/ quickly. That document explains that docker containers only have very limited persistence (this is kind of the whole point of containers). The only persistence of note is volumes. This is normally how settings are saved between recreating containers.
As for dependencies, well it’s possible that one container depends on the service of another. Perhaps this is what you are describing?
Either way, for more detailed help, you will have to explain your setup with more specific technical details.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Paradoxically (or not), restrictions on selling software is a fundamental violation of freedom. When the OSS movement says free, it means freedom as in free to do what you want, not free as in free beer. Of course, that freedom also includes the freedom to give it away.
So in practice, that usually results in exactly what you lament: free software with a business model on top to support its development and pay programmers so they can eat.
We should strive for a wide range of test cases. Real testing is done when the software is tested against a wide range of user inputs. Code coverage is no indicator of response to cases.
Unit tests are a fantastic way of implementing test cases. I am of the opinion that most bug PRs should start with a unit test, if nothing else, a persistent reminder that: hey BTW, your user is going to input this garbage, so any logic you implement ALSO has to be resilient against that garbage.
Engineers and doctors are a restricted profession because those professions can kill people when exercised outside the norms and regulations we are accustomed to in Canada. Being an “engineer” in another country doesn’t automatically grant you the right to call yourself an engineer in Canada. There’s more to it than just education on paper. Engineers and Doctors receive training that is specific to the practices, codes and regulations and expected in the Canadian market they are expected to practice in.
Retraining those professional qualifications for an immigrant is really complicated. We would basically need a dedicated school or two specialized in skills transfer And recertification for hundreds of different countries across dozens of different diplomas. Plus the immigrants would need to be willing. And who’s going to pay for that? I think our educational funding should be prioritized to Canadian students first.
The right example is poorly executed. The left example is fine, but has one crucial deficiency: it’s not very modular, which makes it difficult to test and scale. Big problems need to be broken down and managed in discrete steps, and this is also true of computer code.
The left example is like running a pizza shop where you explain all the steps to everyone and then let everyone loose at the same time to make a pizza. The right example is like creating stations and delegating specific responsabilities to one person at a time.
The former creates redundancy and is manageable at small scale. But as you grow, you find that the added redundancy is of no additional value, while you end up with chaos, as people argue and fight over the process.
Can you imagine five developers working on the monolithic pizza code all at the same time? Total chaos. Better to have one developper assigned to baking, another assigned to prep, etc.
These laws exist to protect existing renters against exploitation of the cost of moving as a negotiation tactic (since the consumer cannot easily shop between renegotiations, it is not a free market).
These laws do not exist to implement fixed housing price policy. What you may be looking for is public housing.
In my experience, a lot of existing rental law tends to be a pretty fair balance between rights of renters and very small property owners, which we should totally encourage. The problems arise with medium and large (institutional) property owners, that don’t need the same degree of protection as small renters, and who leverage their size to bully. The laws should be updated to be stricter for large blocks of ownership. But defining that can be a challenge.
While it’s a new trend, it’s not that new.
One hundred percent.
This isn’t just some overvalued tulip in need of a correction. People need homes and can’t afford to exit the housing market entirely. If people can’t afford housing, that means they can’t really afford anything. Expect the economy to have collapsed. Wages and employment will be down. Home ownership will decline.
Only those with capital to ride out a bumpy economy will be able to snatch up the cheap housing.
The solution to our housing crisis is not to tank the economy. The solution is to tackle the supply of housing, income inequality, and corporate equity in residential real estate.
You are the product, not the paying customer. That means you are cattle.
The farmer will build a fence to protect the cattle from predators, because it is in the interest of the farmer to preserve the cattle. But come payday, the farmer will gladly butcher the cattle for profit.
Social media users in the you-are-the-product buisness model are no different. Your user experience will be catered to you to cultivate the user base. But your experience will be actively ruined the instant it benefits the paying customer, I.e. if that means the paying customer, advertisers, will get what they want (promotion).
The thing is, chasing individual instances is a game of whack-a-mole, with a lot of downside and not a lot of upside. Established companies follow laws and regulations because they are easy targets, with local assets, offices, and public figures that are worth serving/seizing and can be compelled to comply to court orders. How TF you going to enforce a court order in a country that doesn’t recognize your jurisdiction or laws?
The other thing thing is, if you run an instance with moderation rules that skirt the law, you are incentivised not to log personal information and disseminate it because a) that makes you a target, and b) you’ll get called out by your own users for logging and leaking IPs, and people will just move to a different server.
It seems pretty obvious to me that you should assume at all times when you are online that you are basically in a public space, like in a public cafe: People can see you, even if the fact that they are not paying close attention to you creates the illusion of privacy. If you start doing something to stand out, people will start to pay attention to you, and it’s all visible to see unless you actively take precautions to hide your identity. That starts–but doesn’t end–with not browsing piracy on main.
This a 1/1000 likely outcome. Bankrupted companies will typically sell assets including IP and software to other companies to pay creditors (which excludes open sourcing them). And well before bankruptcy, any financial issues will cause Plex to be modified to support shitty monetization to the point that you won’t want the source code amyway.
Sorry for the bad outlook, better that you be ready than to hope for a unicorn.
There are stuff my younger self did in the real world that I am embarrassed about. Not bad, but not exemplary behaviour either. Guess what, there never was an edit/delete button for the real world. Why should we expect the online world to be any different? It’s a fiction. We live with our mistakes.
Acting like being forgotten on the internet is possible is not the solution. It never has been and it never will be.
This is what happens when stack overflow is used for training.