Yeah. It’s a weird distro that Davinci seems to be really committed to for some reason. Davinci Studio on Linux is a bit of a mixed bag. There are several known problems with it mostly related to it being built with outdated libraries that most distros don’t ship with anymore (them including newer ones instead). The other major issue is just around missing codecs, although if you pay for the non-free version it includes the codecs as well.

China also has an established, robust, and technically advanced manufacturing sector. That honestly is the biggest thing keeping manufacturing there. Things made from raw resources could be moved easily but the lower labor costs would be offset by the decreased demand due to most of their customers being back in China.

Things are even worse for anyone making something that requires manufactured components as all those suppliers are in China so now not only are they taking a hit for reduced demand, but also the headaches of having to import their components from China just to build anything. Labor would need to be ridiculously cheap compared to China for that to start looking like a good idea.

Well it’s also about supply chains. All the components are also made in China so you’d end up ordering the parts and then having to wait a month or more for them to be shipped to the US. If you want to avoid delays that means maintaining a significant stockpile of parts in the US that you may or may not ever actually use.

My job has a 3rd kind of complexity, non-essential complexity, which is like essential complexity in that it comes from the business domain, but isn’t actually required. It’s non-technical decisions about how our apps and services must function that introduce all our complexity and massively complicates our code bases. At one point we literally have to attempt to predict the future because they adamantly refuse to simply ask the customer what they’re planning.

The crux of it is that it allows for commercial use without needing to distribute the source code. Whether that’s a good thing or not depends on who you ask. There’s basically a continuum for open source software with GPLv3 at one end and MIT at the other.

GPLv3 guarantees that corporations can’t play games with patents or weird DRM to hobble an open source library and tie it to their closed source product. A lot of corporations will specifically bar employees from using GPLv3 code out of fear it could force them to open source their proprietary code as well.

At the other extreme you’ve got MIT which basically says do what you want with it. Fork it, embed it in your projects, sell copies of it if you want. Anything goes as long as you include a copy of the MIT license along with your software.

Rust tends to get a lot of commercial usage so GPLv2 or MIT tend to be chosen over GPlv3, and between them most companies feel more comfortable with MIT.

Seems to be some kind of centralized streaming service catalog. Never heard of it before now and no idea why anyone would be willing to pay $30 for it let alone $60.