Effectively rendering B and C incompatible in sharing D objects and structures. Just because you technically can doesn't make it a good thing in software architecture.
There is a reason why most globally linked runtimes (e.g. C++ or Java) do not encourage such mechanisms.
The Oracle vs. Google case is based around the copying of header files, including comments, verbatim as is.
The Oracle Amazon API usage is an identical re-implementation of the interfaces, but as a web solution there is per se nothing to copy in verbatim form.
The IBM-PC copycats back in the 80s went as far as clean room re-implementing the system with engineers who never saw the documentation. Ripping the header files out of a proprietary license package is quite cheap from a legal standpoint in comparison, even if open source is provided.
You could also simply use an FM tuner and tune it in between stations for atmospheric noise. Like random.org did for a long time. [0]
Cosmic quantum noise for all your random number needs (after some filtering). Disclaimer: if you are under NSA attack you might have issues with this $5 setup.
> Why would their targets use Facebook for communication when there's many other existing platforms that provide this service.
Because the kids pedophiles target are also there. Just like the easily manipulated teenagers are there for extremist instigation.
The letter does not concern the overall prevention of E2E encrypted communications (obviously unfeasible). It is about predatory and abusive crime settings that take place in online communities, of which Facebook is the largest one.
I am all in for the right to privacy and freedom of personal information protection. But if we go down that road we just as well should discuss the basic limits of freedom in any (offline) democratic society (ie law). I would not want to answer such a question, because it is much more complex than the usual "protect our freedom" privacy advocacy makes it look like when you consider law enforcement as a fundamental role of governments.
It’s not a case of which is better it’s a case of aesthetic. Models don’t necessarily look more real they just have their own look which adds to the film.
CG can certainly look excellent when the effort is put in (a lot is done on the cheap these days) but there is a time and a place for models if you want that feel.
Would be interested in seeing someone try to recreate the feel of models in CG though by literally modelling a model set/scale in CG.
Well no, it's not the same. I love when films use scale models to create effects, and I agree that sometimes they are better. But in this case they used a piece of glass with a projector behind it to recreate one of the simplest company logos, which could've been done in photoshop and after effects for half the time (and probably a 10th of the budget).
But yes, I love the Star Wars and LOTR (Wetaworks) stuff.
There is a reason why most globally linked runtimes (e.g. C++ or Java) do not encourage such mechanisms.