You can post anything you like about Trump on FB/Twitter and you won't have federal police erase you 2 days later. The threshold for that in China is comparing it's current president to a cartoon character.
The last few strongholds I see with C++ is probably game development. To crack into gaming industry, C++ is still a must-have skill.
But TBH, I really don't want to use C++ if the circumstance allows. The language spec is just so overtly complex that feels self-defeating, it is harder and harder to justify use it in the first place.
I think game theory can offer some insight. A tit-for-tat approach has been shown to be an effective long-term strategy over multiple iterations of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Player A will be discouraged from acting adversarially if they have reason to believe that player B will respond in kind.
Does it matter? This is a discussion about the law of the United States, and last I checked we do not follow Chinese law.
I'll reiterate my point from above-- if the US government wants to ban Chinese services, that's fine. I support that decision. What I do not support is doing this via executive order as that is not how laws are passed.
If the US were to ban Chinese companies, it should be a law passed through Congress, signed by the president, and approved by the USSC. It should have clear parameters as to what exactly is being banned. It should, again, not be an executive order banning TikTok explicitly as there is nothing inherently bad about being an app called TikTok.
tldr if the US government wants to play the "fight fire with fire" card, they should be fighting the whole fire, not just the one that upset the president.
Don't know why this is getting downvoted - it's a legitimate (albeit rhetorical) question highlighting that China has never allowed western companies to compete fairly in their market.
Think of buying albums more like a kickstarter fundraising for fans to support their idols. The photo book or the chance to get a ticket for a fan meeting is arguably a bigger draw than that CD itself.
In fact, what I know, a lot of sales, especially oversee ones, those albums are not even physically sent back to the country where they originated at all. It is just a gesture to help their idols rank better on the music shows.
Both Youtube and Spotify allow you to listen for free with ads.
But to humor you. Youtube is for video content primarily. Youtube Music is a premium service that costs as much as Spotify does and has a whole lot less content.
As someone who listens to a lot of music. Spotify offers me a way better UI/UX for consuming music than Youtube Music does.
If you use Google video search (from the search engine itself) often enough, you will many even majority of the times, the top N results are most likely not from Youtube, even though that is what I want.
No creating a competitor isn't easy. Profitable video hosting is trade secret still, and even with Google's technology and scale it becomes barely sustainable.
If the said company has unknown track record, then doing business with them is risky.
What if the company goes out of business in near future? Or get acquired (actually I think A lot of infra companies's end goal is to get acquired)? What if they raise the price out of sudden? How extensible/customizable their solution is?
The trust is the key here. If I am in the position to buy software from somewhere and cost isn't the primary concern, the money would goes to a known/stable figure in the industry.
