There’s a guy on YouTube that covers litter boxes for cats that do that.
Module resolution is a pretty solid reason as to why it’s bad.
Huh? The picture on the left is the newer one.
Am American from that time frame. We called it ding dong ditch, and so did everyone else I ever heard.
Happy spouse happy house
Where the hell are you buying bowls?
Java doesn't have aliases, but Kotlin does! (Kotlin is just better Java)
someone above listed exactly why Python's is so bad. it's pretty bad compared to most other solutions, even ruby's, which isn't as good as modern solutions.
You’re not spelling anything out. This article you are commenting under is literally about the case when YOU ARE NOT BUYING A LICENSE.
Like holy fucking shit you are fucking dense.
And yes you are not buying the fucking copyright. It’s like you don’t understand what that means. If you buy a book from the store you are not buying a license. YOU ALSO AREN’T BUYING THE COPYRIGHT.
Sorry, but you do NOT own any of the copyrighted works that have ever been given to you or purchased.
Yes you do. Buying the copyright has nothing to do with buying the product. Here’s an example. I as a photographer can sell you an image. I own the copyright on that. You cannot duplicate and resell my works as your own. But you can do whatever the fuck you want with the original you purchased. But guess what, I can also sell you a license to use that work instead of selling you the product. So I can say, you can’t do whatever you want with this. You can only use it for personal use cases or in one book. Nothing else. That’s selling you a license. Finally, I can sell you the entire copyright for the photo, transferring that copyright to you entirely, meaning now I can’t do anything I want with my own creation anymore.
These are three different things. You are only buying a license in a very specific context. You are almost never as an individual purchasing a copyright, though businesses buy and sell them all the time.
For the case above, Sony was selling you the full product. They were not selling a license. They were not selling the copyright. They were selling you an item you owned and can resell.
Listen, I don’t think it’s an insult, but this post is literally an “unpopular opinion”. Not only that but we’re literally discussing how people see cartoons as being for kids.
People used to say games are for kids, now the game industry is bigger than the movie industry, with plenty ofnadults playing. Times change, so do cultural norms and word usage
People didn’t say this in the 80s and 90s. They only started calling them for kids in the 2000s when republicans had to find another boogeyman to attack. Then you can see people started to figure out that was clearly stupid.
The first-sale doctrine (also sometimes referred to as the "right of first sale" or the "first sale rule") is a legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
The first sale doctrine literally has NOTHING TO DO with ownership. It has to do with resale restrictions of the copyright holder. You have completely misunderstood the law and its purpose.
Well yeah, that’s what I was saying. It’s an insult because “cartoons are for kids” is the prevailing thought process.