Or maybe she just doesn't believe it's worth discarding anti-trust law over the bogeyman of the day.
The two train companies that couldn't merge can still make trains, and still sell them to whomever they want. European purchasers can still buy them. And after reading articles like this one, these two companies have a big competitive advantage: they don't include Chinese backdoors. Maybe they're small now, but if the Chinese train/bus/etc. manufacturing companies end up being blacklisted in the EU, these two companies will grow. And, better yet, there will still be some healthy competition in the space.
I found it very hard to believe that a Chinese company has more influence than Alstrom + Siemens, in Europe. It might make sense if it's a US company, but I find it difficult to believe for a Chinese one, especially that the recent Netherland example shows that EU can do whatever they want using what excuses they can find, and execute very efficiently.
I'd like to post some questions for thought:
1. What is exactly the bidding process of that particular transaction the OP described?
2. What is exactly in the contract? Does it force the Chinese company to use a lot of local companies for sub-contracting, at the same time keeping a very low profit? In essence, this basically means the EU companies grabbed the biggest share while the Chinese company just got the job. I'm not saying this is the case, but I highly doubt it IS the case as I heard similar stories from other companies.
What fraction of conspiracy theories have proven correct, at a Snowden-ish level?
My sense is that conspiracy theorists are essentially a cron job crying "Wolf!" every 60 seconds. The occasional real-world wolf does not justify paying any attention to the alarms. OTOH, it's a false dichotomy to believe that the false alarms prove the non-existence of wolves.
If the past decade of my life has taught me anything, it's "attribute all malicious actions to malice." It's usually just a matter of direct vs. indirect malice. Meaning, are they directly benefiting from their malicious actions or are they just assholes who "do it for the lulz".
The malicious actions are just at the potential stage at the moment. Someone has the capability to mess with our buses by means of a remote software update.
Just like someone has the capability to do with virtually everything we have running software.
Not to mention, what happens in the event of damage to the towed aircraft rendering flight operations impaired such that it affects the towing aircraft?
Unless "affecting the towing aircraft" means "ripping its tail off", in which case you're screwed no matter what height you're at. GA aircraft are probably a bit sturdier, but large cargo aircraft (based on large passenger aircraft) were simply not designed to pull anything, so I imagine you would need to add some kind of (pretty sturdy) reinforcement to the attachment point, which would mean extra costs and reduce the MTOW of the towing aircraft.
This just seems intentionally bad to show where Rust would be better. This is yet another example of what I call "corner-case" instruction, which I define as, "I am going to take an obviously terrible corner-case that shows what an awful developer can do that will break a program, then demonstrate my brilliance by introducing my (highly-biased) opinionated point I wanted to make..."
In this particular case, it was subtly, Rust is preferred because it doesn't allow unsafe memory operations such as the one demonstrated. Really, all it demonstrates is that you can create really bad C++.
You could implement the same smart pointer library in rust and it would be fine. Rust doesn't magically solve the problems around defined destruction ordering when using ref counted pointers. I try very hard to model my usage of Rc or Arc to be very similar to what this article is trying to showcase for basically the same reasons I imagine they do. I'm actually inspired to write a crate with these semantics to make it harder to mess it up.
In the end, Streaming Services have proven to be nothing more than advertising platforms scattered with brief moments of content. The ads outweigh the content making it less cost effective than going back to Cable, which is still terrible also. Hence the need to pirate and control what content you see.
This is all well and good but, for my mileage, nothing can ever beat C++ generics and the RAII pattern when there is a choice between plain old C and C++ . One second while I get my fire-retardant suit on...
