Yah it's BART that uses an odd track gauge. Although I did read a report saying they did it to make the trains both lighter and also able to withstand wind shear in certain parts of the system.
To be honest though, I didn't find that report very compelling and they didn't back it up with actual load calculations. You really don't hear standard trains being blown over and the Bay Area isn't exactly famous for "high winds" anyway
Mainline BART. e-BART uses standard gauge diesel trains and the half billion dollar Oakland Airport shuttle is a completely bespoke cable car monstrosity.
withstand wind shear
Specifically on the Golden Gate Bridge. Which may or may not be true. The track gauge is perhaps the most standard thing about BART cars.
Given that the comment is talking about python he probably already has those 1.000.000 libraries.
The common thing to do for python programs that are not directly bundled with the os is to set up a separate virtual environment for each one and download/compile the exact version of each dependency from scratch.
Their point is that if 1000 programs use the same 1000 libraries, static linking duplicates all those libraries across each binary, taking that much more storage and memory (which can hurt performance as well), effectively making 1000000 libraries in use.
Dynamic linking gives you M binaries + N libraries. Static linking is M * N.
But there are not 1000 programs being proposed. No one said every binary in a system. Only some binaries are a problem. That is silly hyperbole that isn't useful or any kind of valid argument.
What I said specifically is I'd rather a static binary than a flatpak/snap/appimage/docker/etc. That is a comparison between 2 specific things, and neither of them is "1000 programs using 1000 libraries"
And some binaries already ship with their own copies of all the libraries anyway, just in other forms than static linking. If there are 1000 flatpaks/snaps/docker images etc, then those million libraries are already out there in an even worse form than if they were all static binaries. But there are not, generally, on any give single system, yet, though the number is growing not shrinking.
For all the well known and obvious benefits of dynamic linking, there are reasons why sometimes it's not a good fit for the task.
And in those cases where, for whatever reason, you want the executable to be self-contained, there are any number of ways to arrange it, from a simple tar with the libs & bin in non-conflicting locations and a launcher script that sets a custom lib path (or bin is compiled with the lib path), to appimage/snap/etc, to a full docker/other container, to unikernel, to simple static bin.
All of those give different benefits and incur different costs. Static linking simply has the benefit of being dead simple. It's both space and complexity-efficient compared to any container or bundle system.
? Not really. You can reword it and say that just because google can build it means you shouldn’t try to sell it to them. And google can build pretty much anything at this point if they wanted to.
Google’s budget for software and services I’m sure is in the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. So again, obviously false.
They make their own NICs, GPUs, SSDs and CPUs so you aren't wrong but you also miss the point entirely. I made a statement about customers, not Google. You should have an LLM correct your logic.
This seems like a common misunderstanding. Lots of SaaS have cheaper annual pricing. IIUC Adobe lets you get the cheaper annual pricing and then pay for it on a monthly basis. If you cancel early, you have to pay out the rest of your annual plan. This is no different than if you'd paid for it up front, and prevents people from signing up for the annual plan to get a cheaper monthly price and then canceling early.
My last interaction with Adobe is a few years back, what I recall is:
I got tricked into the "pay monthly for annual subscription" (it was probably written there, just hidden very good). I then cancelled my subscription and instead of telling me "it runs anyway another 10 months", they let me cancel early, charging me a cancellation fee (which I only realized after it was too late) which was _higher_ than the remaining months.
Now I will never ever buy something from Adobe again.
There's seem to be a lot of reports for Adobe continuing to charge a credit card 12-18 months after confirmed cancellation and no recourse or anyone to access for help because the account is closed.
It’s the dumbest argument ever. Find a perpetual software license or 12 month subscription that allows for cancellation for convenience.
I get why some folks are angry, it was easier to pirate Adobe back in the day. If people don’t want to pay, there’s all sorts of competition in different segments of the market as well as open source.
The problem is that the 12 month contract is (a) pulled out of their ass and not reflective of the real costs for either party, and (b) until very recently not even disclosed (even in recent months, there are plenty of reports of cancellation fees from people with screenshots of having correctly chosen the monthly version). The very highest cancellation fee that makes sense is the delta between the monthly rate and what the annual rate projected on to the number of months of payment would be. If an annual subscription is cheaper because of risk or the time value of money, even that delta is a vast overestimate of Adobe's damages, and the fact that they're asking for 10x-20x is a blatant abuse of power.
> Find a perpetual software license or 12 month subscription that allows for cancellation for convenience.
All of them with Canadian customers, for example. It's a product with incremental costs and incremental value, so cancelling it (neither paying incremental costs nor forcing the service provider to do the same) makes perfect sense.
> It was easier to pirate back in the day
That's not the problem at all. Gimp is way better than the piratable photoshop ever was. It's not useful to ad hominem people who don't want to be abused.
I don't know about Canada, but here in France many things come as a long-term contract with monthly payments and cancelation fees. Most common which come to mind are mobile phone plans and ISP subscriptions.
Many companies still have 12 or 24 months plans, and you're on the hook for some form of penalty if you cancel before the term. And no, I'm not talking about buying a plan-subsidized phone, even "naked" plans have this.
Since some years ago, companies have started offering monthly-only plans, so you can cancel anytime. But, for some reason, there still are cancelation fees, which are fixed. What's funny, is that they also usually offer rebates if you switch providers, which usually cover those fees.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but, at least where I live, the Adobe scheme is fairly common.
No way. I have no problem paying. I don't even mind the price. When I signed up last time I chose the monthly option because thats what I was used to for nearly every subscription. I didn't do the math to notice it matched the price of the annual subscription and not once was the cancellation fee mentioned. I was totally caught off guard by the fee and was lucky it was close
to the end of the contract.
It's the same shit internet providers used to do in the US that thankfully they can no longer do. I cannot understand anyone defending Adobe on this if they actually used that plan the way they explained it. Maybe it's better now,
but it absolutely was shady as hell a few years ago.
It isn't a monthly subscription. Its an annual subscription broken up into 12 payments.
I understand that there was a lawsuit and all that, I read through part of the Adobe thread from the other day. I am not defending Adobe in that regard.
If you only want the software for 2-3 months, the month-to-month agreement is available, but if you have a longer-term need for the software you get a discount for committing to a year's worth. If you take the discount, pay the cheaper monthly cost and then cancel before the end of the commitment, a penalty seems fair.
Again I am not defending whatever obfuscation of terms that led to the oft-mentioned lawsuit, just that there seems to be some confusion about monthly and annual commitments.
I had no idea a monthly subscription was even available. You have to ask the website in my region for “more details and more plans” to even see the monthly subscription.
Also because they offer “a discount” on the first year here, it’s 38€ month/yearly plan or 104€ a month/monthly.
I don’t know. If you’re going to allow Adobe to buy its competitors and monopolise entire regions of our economy, this seems a bit shit.
Yes, it is really up to Adobe's marketing team to make sure that customers are not misunderstanding the plan. If the misunderstanding continues, then the government might end up stepping in.
We have practiced the art of liability displacement from living, breathing human beings to artificial constructions for a lot longer than we've had a digital substrate for such
