Since their usage is probably forbidden my the TOS of the platforms they use, and the platforms will try to detect this kind of usage and ban users, I would assume that the closer they appear like natural usage, the more effective they are.
Running these apps on a emulator and using VPNs etc. will probably be a red flag.
I thought of it as "wrestle with me!". To which I often consent, knowing what will await me. It just gets very hurtful if you pull your arm away. But I never got the impression that the cat actually wants to hurt you. They often end up liking you afterwards.
"Copying is theft" is the argument of corporations for ages, but if they want our data and information, to integrate into their business, then, suddenly they have the rights to it.
If copying is not theft, then we have the rights to copy their software and AI models, as well, since it is available on the open web.
They got themselves into quite a contradiction.
Check if you find anything about this in the kernel log (dmesg).
Generally, I tend to think more in the direction of that there is some misunderstanding happening, then people being stupid. Maybe that is just the optimist in me.
What exactly is meant when people say they don't know git. Do they mean the repository data format? Do they mean the network protocol? Do they mean the command line utility? Or just how to work with git as a developer, which is similar to other vcs?
I think if you use some git gui, you can get very far, without needing to understand "git", which I would argue most people, that use it daily, don't, at least not fully.
It also means that anyone can make their own instruction set extensions or just some custom modifications, which would make software much more difficult to port. You would have to patch your compiler for every individual chip, if you even figure out what those instructions are, and what they do. Backwards, forwards or sideway (to other cpus from other vendors) compatibility takes effort, and not everyone will try to have that, and instead add their own individual secret sauce to their instruction set.
IMO, I am excited about RISC-V, but if the license doesn't force adopters to open their designs under an open source license as well, I do expect even more portability issues as we already have with ARM socs.
"you" as in person with required skills, resources and access to a chip fabrication facility. For many others they can just buy something designed and produced by others, or play around a bit on FPGAs.
We will also see how much variation with RISC-V will actually happen, because if every processor is a unique piece of engineering, it is really hard to write software, that works on every one.
Even with ARM there are arguable too many designs out there, which currently take a lot of effort to integrate.
Question is: Good for who?
IMO compared to what the base game costs, the price of DLC is often inflated. And this is not limited to Paradox.
If you would split up the base game, with all its base content into separate DLCs, the base game would cost a lot more. And this is what DLC is all about. This is a bit a race to the bottom at how much content can we rip out content from the base game and sell it to the customer with inflated prices separately, without incurring too much of a public shit storm.
DLC also plays with peoples completionists desires. Many just want to have the full experience, so they buy stuff, they would like not do, if it was a separate game.
DLC also fragments the community, mods or multiplayer might not work for someone not owning specific DLC. Yet another psychological manipulation into buying them.
So good for company stockholders, but not really good for people that prefer transparent and consistent pricing and quality.
That is why many devices have built-in fuses.
You can rotate F 180 degrees and plug it in.
Depends a bit on what the default cloning url will be. If the domain is in control of mozilla, which forwards it to github, then fine, if most people start using the github url, then it is still a vendor lock in, because many people and projects will use it, and that is not so easy to move away.
Update: To the people down-voting my comment, I would love to hear why you either disagree with me, or find that my that my contribution to this discussion is worthless.
The upstream URL of a project or repo is important, because it will be used in other projects, like in build scripts for fetching the sources. If a projects changes that URL in the future, and the old URL is no longer available/functional, all those scripts need to be changed and the old versions of these scripts do not work anymore out of the box.
If the project owns the URL, then can add redirect rules, that might help alleviate some of these issues. I don't think github allows projects that move away from it to do that. So this is a sort of vendor lock-in. The project needs to maintain the repo on github, because they want to break the internet as little as possible.
Just another artifact of the fact that advertiser financed businesses is not robust. And the end of them is likely coming nearer.