I used to develop a little-known software project, and then another project really took off and I switched to using that, because it just made sense.
MPC-HC did a good job of continuing to use the Windows Media framework as best it could, fixing the breakage of the progress of windows media player. However, it was still based on a pretty crappy framework not of their choosing. At the time to be fair the alternatives weren't sufficiently feature capable, and in certain cases still has benefit (iirc, smooth video only does the ms framework)
VLC and similar just dispense with that broken stack entirely, and so it's much more straightforward to get right without goofy 'codec packs' and such.
Oh no, they are arguing with a phone vendor, boo hoo.
In the wake of the dot-com burst, the company I had been working at (well as much 'working' as college kids actually did at dot com startups) dissolved, so I found myself with the only job I could find, IT intern at the research site of an industrial equipment manufacturer. It paid barely more than minmum wage and capped my hours to 20 a week.
The first day I was informed that they consider IT a part of facilities, so I would report to their director of facilities, and I was in fact *the* IT department. This seemed ok. They showed me to where I should sit, and it was a rickety table and cheap hard plastic chair in the closet with a rack of servers, a rack of telephony equipment, and bits of the HVAC control system around.
The next day I went to ask for my work assignment and the facilities director wasn't there. A few hours later I was informed that they had fired him, and I was assuming the role of facilities. I asked if I could use his now empty office and was told no, those were only for director level executives, so I went through my tenure in the closet, not even allowed to use any of the empty offices or cubicles. But the fun had not yet begun.
I quickly learned that the company had one rule: never ever ever call a vendor, even if under warranty. My first lesson was when they brought me in to look at some piece of industrial equipment used on factory floors for something or another. There was a computer attached saying that there was a fault in the equipment, and so the equipment would not run. After double checking the computer I said as near as I could tell, that the fault was legitimate, and we should call the manufacturer for guidance. I was informed we shouldn't do that, and I should try to diagnose the equipment myself. So I grabbed an oscilloscope and an ohmmeter and went about effectively trying to reverse engineer the monitoring circuitry of a broken whatever the hell it was. I did actually find an open in a fairly standard component, and said we could buy a new one for a couple dollars and see if that worked, was asked if I could repair it, so broke it's casing open and soldered it and the equipment actually worked.
Another time the HVAC stopped working, and they asked me to dig into that. Fortunately there was some sort of locked down monitoring implementation and we had to call the vendor, who informed us that it would have been against our contract to even *try* to fix it.
The last notable event along those lines came as one day the security system was emitting a little chirp every 5 minutes and had a fault light. They asked me to look at it, but knowing that I had no idea how to approach it and that a mistake could incur a hefty false alarm fine from the city, I refused. Ultimately some VP said 'fine, let me see'. Within 10 minutes of him 'seeing', the full alarm went off, and within 2 minutes two fire trucks and 3 police cars arrived and the company had to pay a large false alarm fine (for residential, there's leeway, but corporate alarm are treated a bit more strictly).
Thankfully it only took about 3 months of working there before I found a better job.
That too is a fair point. If the system asked 'Race', everyone would *assume* that it's being negatively racist and going to penalize people for not being white, even if the goal is to correct for historical racial bias causing some of the questions to indicate false positives.
Even if the reality was that it weighted certain questions more favorably toward minorities 'they had a parent in jail, but they are black and black people have been unfairly put in jail in the past, so maybe do not weigh this so much as a contributing factor'.
However, based on how wildly inaccurate in general it is, I seriously doubt in *this* case that allowing it to get race would have helped, as the system seems to be garbage anyway.
So the real story in their cherry picked example is two fold: -It's wildly inaccurate, and Northpointe's product should be put out to pasture and never used, period. -A system is being used to influence punishment that is not open to auditing because 'proprietary'.
Note that the systems explicitly did not have knowledge of race. So we have two possibilities: -Some criteria that correlates to race is triggering it -The system is perpetuating existing bias in perception and reality. For example:
-"Was one of your parents ever sent to jail or prison?" could easily cause the ghosts of prejudice that caused unjust incarceration to recur today.
-"How often do you get in fights at school?" Again, if one is subjected to racial tension, they may unfairly be a party to fights they didn't ask for.
- he doesn't know how to do a proper SQL query, handle the transaction and close the connection after
Do you one better, doesn't know when *not* to be using database technology at all. Throwing a database (sql or 'nosql', 'webscale' or otherwise) at every little thing is just bad form.
There is thankfully at least some trend of using 'static site builders' to do things static, with CSS to fool people into thinking it's appropriately 'modern' despite having a sane underpinning, without doing unnaturaly things with database backends and javascript and such).
However that trend isn't nearly so pervasive as it should be.
On the flipside, while these people *think* they are making expertly crafted sites, they've in practice poorly duct taped a bunch of stuff that looks fancy at a glance, but behaves crazy and is damned near impossible for anyone to figure out what's going on.
What's happened here is we have a whole ton of people who can do the equivalent of drywall, paint, and decoration work, but can't build foundations or framing. Complicating things is the decision makers frequently can only judge the superficial, so teams that are good at doing that structural stuff but can't make attractive front end will be passed over for teams that can make something attractive, but works terribly.
Further complicating matters is the often erroneous assumption that you simply *must* use some sort of framework. Javascript has matured, and while it still is missing a lot of basic stuff (e.g. basic string formatting), it is pretty well capable.
For example, some people are afraid of XMLHTTPRequest and will use a framework to do it for them, despite them having to do about the same amount of work, but from the browser debug window, it's a whole lot more convoluted. In fact interaction with the server side *continues* to be the first thing these frameworks are standing up to try to 'help' me with, followed closely by things like an alternative version of getElementby* functions that are slower and not really any easier to use either.
On the flip side, if I'm making UI elements, it's not *too* terrible to manipulate divs and do CSS to make those abstract HTML elements act like UI elements, but it tends to be the most tedious thing and frameworks are in fact generally not that much to help with that part. Of course before you go off making 'UI elements', you better be damned sure that much silliness really makes sense in the specific context, and that you are not hiding some straightforward information behind too much snazziness.
Bad news: most web content has outgrown the simplistic 'view source'.
Good news: As javascript has matured, technologies like java, flash, and activex in the browser that was used in the 'good old days' to get around how useless it was have gone away, and javascript is at least source (more to come)
Better news: Browsers now have developer tools that can enable far more capable tinkering than was dreamed of in the 'view source' days. You can dynamically screw with html, css, and javascript, adding and deleting and trying things and reverse engineering a web site in incredible ways. See how it interacts via the network tab, look at the stack trace to discover the code that is trying to interact with that server side call. Look at any piece of thing visually on the page and look at the event listeners t ochase down code, etc.
Discouraging news: The tendency to minify will mangle code in terrible ways. The whitespace removal is reversible, but the name mangling and globbing all files together and other things are hard to overcome.
The real terrible news: The use of 'framework of the week' tends to screw up the debug capability of those developer tools. The event listeners on a DOM element are inscrutible and the stack trace of a network call can be very tall and magically not even include the 'real' code that arranged for that interaction (hidden behind some trick like scheduling request with setTimeout to get the good stuff out of the stack for BS reasons).
Now one could lament that it is no longer acceptable to have plain-old, unstyled, static HTML, but 'view source' doesn't factor in there, and there is at least some refreshing resurgence of static content, albeit with styling to make it 'look pretty'.
The point being you connect to http, and no worries, it's all cool. It's warm and fuzzy and not at all something to fret about.
You connect to https with self-signed cert, *IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD*, you are horribly insecure, it's dangerous, you shouldn't even *try* to talk to the server, if you really want to you should click through 2 or 3 dialogs, and also you should be forced to do that every time you reconnect to the same server, without even a hint of whether the certificate changed from last time.
It's just such a strange disconnect. I have seen web server operators opt to prefer http rather than https so as not to scare off users, even if they may be handling potentially sensitive information.
Self-signed certs should be treated more like ssh keys in general.
Ownership of what, the hostname? The client requesting the certificate has to satisfy a challenge, for example placing a file with specific contents at a specific location controlled by the hostname, or populating a specific DNS record with a specific value for that hostname's zone.
The concern being if you are launching a man-in-the-middle attack and you are near the server side of the connection, then you could pass such a challenge as well. Sure, in the overwhelmingly more likely case that you are close to the client side, you can't do this sort of thing, but it is possible particularly for small domains for an attacker to be close to the server side.
Now this may be no weaker than the status quo, I can't speak to that.
It's probably not good for https to pop up the word 'Secure' for non-EV certs, as it implies a lot more than it really means.
You could have more parking spots on ground floor without other floors having to have shafts. The ability to have different number of parking spots on key floors is something feasible compared with having a lot of shafts.
I imagine too that a shaft may be more expensive engineering wise than horizontal parking spots. Structurally I could easily see more space needed for a shaft than something more strictly horizontal.
Could also be read as 'due to the battery, which couldn't be individually recalled since it was not removable'. It doesn't say 'due to the battery being non-removable'. The phrasing used could be interpreted ambiguously.
I was thinking more that the parked cars would not be *in* the shaft.
So to take your overkill example of 10 cars, 2 shafts. I'll assume that each floor has a 'station' in the middle of the shafts, where the cars actually go to load/unload.
If only one car gets used, then the passenger boards, it shifts right into the right shaft, at the same time the car on the target floor shifts to the left shaft to do a swap. The other 8 cars stay stationary at their stations throughout the whole thing.
This also means loading/unloading time is no huge deal, since that occurs while the lift is not in a shaft.
The question is whether your living arrangements are cheaper in the long run. For example, yes my house was more expensive than renting, until I paid it off (particularly since I paid it off before I turned 30, it took a lot of up front money every month to pull that off). Now I merely pay insurance and property tax, and it's dirt cheap. People tend to get in the bad habit of comparing rent to mortgage and presuming both are eternal expenses.
Or folks just disagreed strongly with each other and it doesn't really reflect poorly on anyone (at least until one or the other side is proven right or wrong).
In this level of doing things, compromise and moving forward may not be as feasible as it is in the lower levels. If you have leadership that really don't want to be on the same page, it will impact the quality of that leadership.
I have been in places where it has been very obvious that executives don't agree, and one is ostensibly yielding to the other, but it's clear that whether he meant it or not, his leadership was undermining the other because he didn't genuinely believe in the other's direction. Even as he tried to tow the party line and said mostly the right things, you couldn't help but to see his true thoughts bleed through and inspire decisions that did not work well in the context of the stated strategy.
a few microseconds before selling a large lot of the index itself.
I've long thought this needs to be squashed. Sub-second trading granularity just isn't adding anything meaningful, but it causes crazy distorted and unfair trading practices. Something like shuffling transactions over a larger timescale that is more fair.
While I agree with the sentiment, the reality is that the dollar values are imaginary and translating from one imaginary context to another doesn't mean intuitive expectations would be met.
Since we love car analogies, if you had the labor and resources to produce one Lamborghini Aventador, you could not take those same resources to make 20 Toyota Corollas, even though the price difference suggests you could (400k vs. 20k).
It's still sad and unfair since, but not so easy to fix.
If you rent your house, you are funding the upkeep and property tax for the owner, plus the owner gets profit.
If you 'own' your house, sure you are still paying property tax, but you are not funding the landlord.
For example, when I rented, I spent about 12k/year to use half of one bedroom of a two bedroom townhouse.
Now I pay about 2k/year in taxes for full use of a three bedroom house in the same area (having long paid off the mortgage).
The issue is that so many people view car loans and mortgages as eternal things, and compare rent or lease payment to those loan payments and think 'well it costs the same'. I've seen this to the extreme of someone getting a new car every two years because 'well, it's not like it's any more expensive, the monthly payment is the same, why should I pay the same to drive a two year old card as a brand new car?'
Yes, you can't 'buy' an ebook or movie for the most part. Plenty of vendors line up to make you feel like you are, but if that vendor goes away, so too do your purchases.
Music was lucky, at the time digital distribution of that went popular and precedents got set, DRM was not viable yet. They *tried* and it was terrible and consequently I can get digital copies of music legitimately without DRM.
Books and movies though... There isn't much of a way to legitimately acquire those without DRM...
Most of the time you start watching a show that was originated by anything *but* Netflix and you see the show. They generally tuck info about the originating network into the credits and are subtle (except in ads on their own network). Perhaps this is to make selling it for syndication easier, since networks are accustomed to buying things off of each other. Also, due to same syndication, the progeny of a show may become muddled, particularly if a show runs long enough to be both new on original network and in syndication elsewhere. DVR and streaming online obfuscates the origin of the show further.
You start watching any episode of anything netflix made, you first have to click through the show icon with a gigantic 'netflix original series logo', then the first thing in the show itself is 'A netflix original series'. Netflix beats it repeatedly over the viewers head that this is a netflix original series. Other points made about cord cutting and all that may be real, but in terms of identifying the originating network, it's easy to see how marketing strategy plays in.
One: memory. 64 bit applications use more memory. Two: storage. 32 bit compatibility means 32 bit libs alongside 64 bit
Finally, apart from compatibility, there isn't much upside for 64 bit if you have less than 4GB of ram.
I don't know if Windows does anything with it, and in practice I don't think it's used, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is an example of using 32 bit x86 but requiring x86_64 because of memory.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to develop a little-known software project, and then another project really took off and I switched to using that, because it just made sense.
MPC-HC did a good job of continuing to use the Windows Media framework as best it could, fixing the breakage of the progress of windows media player. However, it was still based on a pretty crappy framework not of their choosing. At the time to be fair the alternatives weren't sufficiently feature capable, and in certain cases still has benefit (iirc, smooth video only does the ms framework)
VLC and similar just dispense with that broken stack entirely, and so it's much more straightforward to get right without goofy 'codec packs' and such.
Good thing commercial vendors never cancel product lines or go out of business.
Oh no, they are arguing with a phone vendor, boo hoo.
In the wake of the dot-com burst, the company I had been working at (well as much 'working' as college kids actually did at dot com startups) dissolved, so I found myself with the only job I could find, IT intern at the research site of an industrial equipment manufacturer. It paid barely more than minmum wage and capped my hours to 20 a week.
The first day I was informed that they consider IT a part of facilities, so I would report to their director of facilities, and I was in fact *the* IT department. This seemed ok. They showed me to where I should sit, and it was a rickety table and cheap hard plastic chair in the closet with a rack of servers, a rack of telephony equipment, and bits of the HVAC control system around.
The next day I went to ask for my work assignment and the facilities director wasn't there. A few hours later I was informed that they had fired him, and I was assuming the role of facilities. I asked if I could use his now empty office and was told no, those were only for director level executives, so I went through my tenure in the closet, not even allowed to use any of the empty offices or cubicles. But the fun had not yet begun.
I quickly learned that the company had one rule: never ever ever call a vendor, even if under warranty. My first lesson was when they brought me in to look at some piece of industrial equipment used on factory floors for something or another. There was a computer attached saying that there was a fault in the equipment, and so the equipment would not run. After double checking the computer I said as near as I could tell, that the fault was legitimate, and we should call the manufacturer for guidance. I was informed we shouldn't do that, and I should try to diagnose the equipment myself. So I grabbed an oscilloscope and an ohmmeter and went about effectively trying to reverse engineer the monitoring circuitry of a broken whatever the hell it was. I did actually find an open in a fairly standard component, and said we could buy a new one for a couple dollars and see if that worked, was asked if I could repair it, so broke it's casing open and soldered it and the equipment actually worked.
Another time the HVAC stopped working, and they asked me to dig into that. Fortunately there was some sort of locked down monitoring implementation and we had to call the vendor, who informed us that it would have been against our contract to even *try* to fix it.
The last notable event along those lines came as one day the security system was emitting a little chirp every 5 minutes and had a fault light. They asked me to look at it, but knowing that I had no idea how to approach it and that a mistake could incur a hefty false alarm fine from the city, I refused. Ultimately some VP said 'fine, let me see'. Within 10 minutes of him 'seeing', the full alarm went off, and within 2 minutes two fire trucks and 3 police cars arrived and the company had to pay a large false alarm fine (for residential, there's leeway, but corporate alarm are treated a bit more strictly).
Thankfully it only took about 3 months of working there before I found a better job.
That too is a fair point. If the system asked 'Race', everyone would *assume* that it's being negatively racist and going to penalize people for not being white, even if the goal is to correct for historical racial bias causing some of the questions to indicate false positives.
Even if the reality was that it weighted certain questions more favorably toward minorities 'they had a parent in jail, but they are black and black people have been unfairly put in jail in the past, so maybe do not weigh this so much as a contributing factor'.
However, based on how wildly inaccurate in general it is, I seriously doubt in *this* case that allowing it to get race would have helped, as the system seems to be garbage anyway.
So the real story in their cherry picked example is two fold:
-It's wildly inaccurate, and Northpointe's product should be put out to pasture and never used, period.
-A system is being used to influence punishment that is not open to auditing because 'proprietary'.
Note that the systems explicitly did not have knowledge of race. So we have two possibilities:
-Some criteria that correlates to race is triggering it
-The system is perpetuating existing bias in perception and reality. For example:
-"Was one of your parents ever sent to jail or prison?" could easily cause the ghosts of prejudice that caused unjust incarceration to recur today.
-"How often do you get in fights at school?" Again, if one is subjected to racial tension, they may unfairly be a party to fights they didn't ask for.
- he doesn't know how to do a proper SQL query, handle the transaction and close the connection after
Do you one better, doesn't know when *not* to be using database technology at all. Throwing a database (sql or 'nosql', 'webscale' or otherwise) at every little thing is just bad form.
There is thankfully at least some trend of using 'static site builders' to do things static, with CSS to fool people into thinking it's appropriately 'modern' despite having a sane underpinning, without doing unnaturaly things with database backends and javascript and such).
However that trend isn't nearly so pervasive as it should be.
On the flipside, while these people *think* they are making expertly crafted sites, they've in practice poorly duct taped a bunch of stuff that looks fancy at a glance, but behaves crazy and is damned near impossible for anyone to figure out what's going on.
What's happened here is we have a whole ton of people who can do the equivalent of drywall, paint, and decoration work, but can't build foundations or framing. Complicating things is the decision makers frequently can only judge the superficial, so teams that are good at doing that structural stuff but can't make attractive front end will be passed over for teams that can make something attractive, but works terribly.
Further complicating matters is the often erroneous assumption that you simply *must* use some sort of framework. Javascript has matured, and while it still is missing a lot of basic stuff (e.g. basic string formatting), it is pretty well capable.
For example, some people are afraid of XMLHTTPRequest and will use a framework to do it for them, despite them having to do about the same amount of work, but from the browser debug window, it's a whole lot more convoluted. In fact interaction with the server side *continues* to be the first thing these frameworks are standing up to try to 'help' me with, followed closely by things like an alternative version of getElementby* functions that are slower and not really any easier to use either.
On the flip side, if I'm making UI elements, it's not *too* terrible to manipulate divs and do CSS to make those abstract HTML elements act like UI elements, but it tends to be the most tedious thing and frameworks are in fact generally not that much to help with that part. Of course before you go off making 'UI elements', you better be damned sure that much silliness really makes sense in the specific context, and that you are not hiding some straightforward information behind too much snazziness.
Bad news: most web content has outgrown the simplistic 'view source'.
Good news: As javascript has matured, technologies like java, flash, and activex in the browser that was used in the 'good old days' to get around how useless it was have gone away, and javascript is at least source (more to come)
Better news: Browsers now have developer tools that can enable far more capable tinkering than was dreamed of in the 'view source' days. You can dynamically screw with html, css, and javascript, adding and deleting and trying things and reverse engineering a web site in incredible ways. See how it interacts via the network tab, look at the stack trace to discover the code that is trying to interact with that server side call. Look at any piece of thing visually on the page and look at the event listeners t ochase down code, etc.
Discouraging news: The tendency to minify will mangle code in terrible ways. The whitespace removal is reversible, but the name mangling and globbing all files together and other things are hard to overcome.
The real terrible news: The use of 'framework of the week' tends to screw up the debug capability of those developer tools. The event listeners on a DOM element are inscrutible and the stack trace of a network call can be very tall and magically not even include the 'real' code that arranged for that interaction (hidden behind some trick like scheduling request with setTimeout to get the good stuff out of the stack for BS reasons).
Now one could lament that it is no longer acceptable to have plain-old, unstyled, static HTML, but 'view source' doesn't factor in there, and there is at least some refreshing resurgence of static content, albeit with styling to make it 'look pretty'.
The point being you connect to http, and no worries, it's all cool. It's warm and fuzzy and not at all something to fret about.
You connect to https with self-signed cert, *IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD*, you are horribly insecure, it's dangerous, you shouldn't even *try* to talk to the server, if you really want to you should click through 2 or 3 dialogs, and also you should be forced to do that every time you reconnect to the same server, without even a hint of whether the certificate changed from last time.
It's just such a strange disconnect. I have seen web server operators opt to prefer http rather than https so as not to scare off users, even if they may be handling potentially sensitive information.
Self-signed certs should be treated more like ssh keys in general.
Ownership of what, the hostname? The client requesting the certificate has to satisfy a challenge, for example placing a file with specific contents at a specific location controlled by the hostname, or populating a specific DNS record with a specific value for that hostname's zone.
The concern being if you are launching a man-in-the-middle attack and you are near the server side of the connection, then you could pass such a challenge as well. Sure, in the overwhelmingly more likely case that you are close to the client side, you can't do this sort of thing, but it is possible particularly for small domains for an attacker to be close to the server side.
Now this may be no weaker than the status quo, I can't speak to that.
It's probably not good for https to pop up the word 'Secure' for non-EV certs, as it implies a lot more than it really means.
You could have more parking spots on ground floor without other floors having to have shafts. The ability to have different number of parking spots on key floors is something feasible compared with having a lot of shafts.
I imagine too that a shaft may be more expensive engineering wise than horizontal parking spots. Structurally I could easily see more space needed for a shaft than something more strictly horizontal.
Could also be read as 'due to the battery, which couldn't be individually recalled since it was not removable'. It doesn't say 'due to the battery being non-removable'. The phrasing used could be interpreted ambiguously.
I was thinking more that the parked cars would not be *in* the shaft.
So to take your overkill example of 10 cars, 2 shafts. I'll assume that each floor has a 'station' in the middle of the shafts, where the cars actually go to load/unload.
If only one car gets used, then the passenger boards, it shifts right into the right shaft, at the same time the car on the target floor shifts to the left shaft to do a swap. The other 8 cars stay stationary at their stations throughout the whole thing.
This also means loading/unloading time is no huge deal, since that occurs while the lift is not in a shaft.
The question is whether your living arrangements are cheaper in the long run. For example, yes my house was more expensive than renting, until I paid it off (particularly since I paid it off before I turned 30, it took a lot of up front money every month to pull that off). Now I merely pay insurance and property tax, and it's dirt cheap. People tend to get in the bad habit of comparing rent to mortgage and presuming both are eternal expenses.
Or folks just disagreed strongly with each other and it doesn't really reflect poorly on anyone (at least until one or the other side is proven right or wrong).
In this level of doing things, compromise and moving forward may not be as feasible as it is in the lower levels. If you have leadership that really don't want to be on the same page, it will impact the quality of that leadership.
I have been in places where it has been very obvious that executives don't agree, and one is ostensibly yielding to the other, but it's clear that whether he meant it or not, his leadership was undermining the other because he didn't genuinely believe in the other's direction. Even as he tried to tow the party line and said mostly the right things, you couldn't help but to see his true thoughts bleed through and inspire decisions that did not work well in the context of the stated strategy.
a few microseconds before selling a large lot of the index itself.
I've long thought this needs to be squashed. Sub-second trading granularity just isn't adding anything meaningful, but it causes crazy distorted and unfair trading practices. Something like shuffling transactions over a larger timescale that is more fair.
While I agree with the sentiment, the reality is that the dollar values are imaginary and translating from one imaginary context to another doesn't mean intuitive expectations would be met.
Since we love car analogies, if you had the labor and resources to produce one Lamborghini Aventador, you could not take those same resources to make 20 Toyota Corollas, even though the price difference suggests you could (400k vs. 20k).
It's still sad and unfair since, but not so easy to fix.
The point was that the x32 ABI is the strategy of doing all 32 bit, but using the full complement of x86_64 registers.
x32 != x86, x32 is a 32 bit subset of x86_64.
Actually, there is still the matter of what you *tell* the IDE to do.
The popular opinion on each project wins. I did enjoy changing tabstop the other day for someone's code that had perhaps way too much nesting...
If you rent your house, you are funding the upkeep and property tax for the owner, plus the owner gets profit.
If you 'own' your house, sure you are still paying property tax, but you are not funding the landlord.
For example, when I rented, I spent about 12k/year to use half of one bedroom of a two bedroom townhouse.
Now I pay about 2k/year in taxes for full use of a three bedroom house in the same area (having long paid off the mortgage).
The issue is that so many people view car loans and mortgages as eternal things, and compare rent or lease payment to those loan payments and think 'well it costs the same'. I've seen this to the extreme of someone getting a new car every two years because 'well, it's not like it's any more expensive, the monthly payment is the same, why should I pay the same to drive a two year old card as a brand new car?'
Yes, you can't 'buy' an ebook or movie for the most part. Plenty of vendors line up to make you feel like you are, but if that vendor goes away, so too do your purchases.
Music was lucky, at the time digital distribution of that went popular and precedents got set, DRM was not viable yet. They *tried* and it was terrible and consequently I can get digital copies of music legitimately without DRM.
Books and movies though... There isn't much of a way to legitimately acquire those without DRM...
Most of the time you start watching a show that was originated by anything *but* Netflix and you see the show. They generally tuck info about the originating network into the credits and are subtle (except in ads on their own network). Perhaps this is to make selling it for syndication easier, since networks are accustomed to buying things off of each other. Also, due to same syndication, the progeny of a show may become muddled, particularly if a show runs long enough to be both new on original network and in syndication elsewhere. DVR and streaming online obfuscates the origin of the show further.
You start watching any episode of anything netflix made, you first have to click through the show icon with a gigantic 'netflix original series logo', then the first thing in the show itself is 'A netflix original series'. Netflix beats it repeatedly over the viewers head that this is a netflix original series. Other points made about cord cutting and all that may be real, but in terms of identifying the originating network, it's easy to see how marketing strategy plays in.
One: memory. 64 bit applications use more memory.
Two: storage. 32 bit compatibility means 32 bit libs alongside 64 bit
Finally, apart from compatibility, there isn't much upside for 64 bit if you have less than 4GB of ram.
I don't know if Windows does anything with it, and in practice I don't think it's used, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is an example of using 32 bit x86 but requiring x86_64 because of memory.