It legitimately IS exponentiation. Romanian lady was wrong.

So anything bad that ever happens to you is your own fault?

Do you just walk around through life assuming cancer patients did something awful to deserve their disease? Cause that's the only way this analogy makes any sense...

Nah dw the mom just has epidermodysplasia verruciformis

You do realize not all germans are responsible for ww2. Only like 37 percent were literal Nazis. Not sure why everyone hated them so much /s

Let the base kick ooooooooooo AAE-O-A-A-U-U-A- E-eee-ee-eee AAAAE-A-E-I-E-A- OO-ooo-oo-oo-oo EEEEO-A-AAA-AAAA

There does exist a crate that allows you to turn it off. Unfortunately the compiler will still compiler your code assuming the same exclusive access rules imposed by the borrow checker, so any time you break the borrow checker rules you're basically guaranteed to segfault.

The rust compiler always assumes mutable pointers are exclusive. This is the crux of your issue with the borrow checker. If you don't make this assumption, then you can't automatically drop variables when they fall out of scope, thus the programmer would have to manually allocate memory.

You may prefer even then to allocate memory yourself, but if I was you I would just trust the rust compiler in its assumption that it can optimize programs much better when all pointers are exclusive, and learn to program in a compliant manner

Why did you not censor the guys name??? All you're doing is hurting them more by making this post.

Nothing against office workers trying to scrape by and make a living but holy fuck did this company ever have this coming.

Nothing like watching the greedy ouroboros devour itself in real time.

That's not the same as content distribution.

Sharing content to clients cannot be effectively done through creative cloud.

It does not make sense to try and stop the distribution at the level of video editing. Not only is the thought of child predators making regular use of professional editing software completely absurd, but even if you assume they do, why the fuck do you think they would use the inbuilt cloud sharing tools to do so?? They would just encrypt the contents and transmit it over any other file sharing service...

It makes no sense to implement this measure because it does absolutely nothing to impede criminals, but enables a company well known for egregious privacy violations unprecedented access to information completely law abiding clients have legitimate reasons to want to keep private.

It is a farce. A smokescreen intended to encroach on customers precious data all the while doing nothing to assist law enforcement.

Adobe is not a video distribution platform. They do not have this level of culpability.

Sounds like a smokescreen to me. All file sharing services have this problem. The solution is to respond to subpoena requests and let the government do their jobs. They do not have to allow themselves to arbitrarily violate their users privacy in order to do that.

In short it's essentially a protocol that defines what type of requests must be sent between applications and a compositor.