That’s no less true than games written in C, or otherwise with few dependencies. Doom is way more portable than RCT precisely because it’s written in C instead of assembly.
That’s no less true than games written in C, or otherwise with few dependencies. Doom is way more portable than RCT precisely because it’s written in C instead of assembly.
Shared dependencies or death
Docker
🤔
Kinda. IANAL, but here’s my understanding: If you’re explicitly dual-licensing and publish the proprietary license then contributions can be assumed to also follow the same dual licensing. You’d need to be extremely careful with writing the proprietary license though, since your business is now using non-employee proprietary code.
If you write “the copyright holder may choose to allow an entity to use this work”, then you do actually need permission from every contributor. If you write “this work may be copied, modified and redistributed freely by Blah enterprises” now the business cannot be sold without losing access (or possibly have it’s name changed). If you write “Neshura may freely copy, modify and redistribute this” then you can’t be fired or move jobs without the company losing access.
You can also never ever change this license, since every contributor needs to agree. So if a mistake is made when writing it you’re just fucked.
On the other hand with a CLA that transfers copyright ownership you don’t need to dual-license at all since everything already belongs to the business. Much less risky.
Only until you have any other contributor, as you’re then no longer the sole copyright holder. If you still want to work like that you’ll need a CLA.
Pouring water on lithium-ion battery fires is not only safe it’s the primary means of fighting them. It does not make them explode a second time, what it does do is cool down the battery.
Lithium battery fires though, there you’ll want a class D extinguisher. Those batteries aren’t in EVs though.
TLDs are valid in emails, as are IP V6 addresses, so checking for a .
is technically not correct. For example a@b
and a@[IPv6:2001:db8::1]
are both valid email addresses.
Deer had “produced documentary evidence that Wakefield applied for a patent on a single-jab measles vaccine before his campaign against the MMR vaccine, raising questions about his motives”.
He both wanted to sell test kits and have his own vaccine.
This is plainly false. Hash collisions aren’t more likely for longer passwords and there’s no guarantee there aren’t collisions for inputs smaller than the hash size. The way secure hashing algorithms avoid collisions is by making them astronomically unlikely and that doesn’t change for longer inputs.
Double negatives affirming one another instead of negating is a common thing in language, known as “emphatic negation” or “negative concord”. Middle English used emphatic negation and various English dialects still use it to this day including African-American English. They’re saying exactly what they mean, just not in Standard English. Just like they’re probably not pronouncing the words the same way. No reason to get annoyed.