The flow of time is an unstoppable force of nature.
Time is an averaged measure of entropy defined by man and not something which exists inherently in physics. There's no such thing like time in an entropy-free system.
To make a Facebook account mandatory renders Oculus (Quest 2, but applies also to new Rift S and CV users) unusable for us.
We'll look for other options to educate the VR developers of the future.
I work since about 1995 mostly with Java. Never heard about a payroll system or inventory management written in Java. This is all off the shelf software like SAP or Oracle stuff (which could be in Java) you simply buy or rent. No one writes his own payroll system, that makes no sense at all.
I know at least one large German electronics retailer who had wirtten the backend for their inventory and merchandise management system in Java. If you need agility in your sales processes, this makes complete sense because customizing SAP or Oracle to your needs is pretty much of a nightmare. In my opinion that was a huge advantage for them.
KDE has earned these results. For years now KDE development has been thoughtful and conservative; no iconoclasts have been permitted to blow up everything in another doomed attempt to reinvent the desktop.
I'm a KDE user myself but do not share this opinion entirely. Some years ago the Kontact suite including the popular Kmail client was made unusable by a well-intended but badly designed backend. Akonadi, Nepomuk, Strigi, Baloo drove flocks of users away from Kontact and even KDE.
...and now I'm back to wondering how you might hope to catch cheaters when you have a program which starts by abstracting away the minutia when you're dealing with simple college level coding problems.
The "minutia" are worthless because they can easily be altered for fraud. However, it is not easy to change the overall structure of a program. The effort is similar to write the program by oneself from the start. We use professional-grade plagiarism software (throwing away "minutia") and it works very robust. The most important parameters are maximum length of identical token sequences and percentage of identical n-gram token sequences. The main difficulty is to find a balanced parametrization. A low levels of false positives leads to a high level of false negatives and vice versa. Following "in dubio pro reo", a low FP-level is prefered.
There are only so many ways to solve the same problem.
Ca. 20 code lines with freely to be written logic are required. You would be astonished of how many ways there are to solve even small programming problems.
Heh, I'd have been the dick who wrote an automated obfuscator.
Your obfuscator would be entirely useless against professional plagiarism programs.
Flip the indentation from spaces to tabs ( or tabs to spaces ), randomly change ctime/mtime ( within acceptable range ), camelcase to underscore ( or reverse ), use a dictionary to change variables to their synonyms, add generic comments ( ala "palm reading" ), randomly placed returns ( where language appropriate ).
spaces to tabs: whitespace usually is ignored
ctime/mtime: why should this be considered anyway?
camelcase to underscore: identifier names are ignored
change variable names: identifier names are ignored
add generic comments: comments are ignored
randomly placed returns: whitespace usually is ignored
Professional-grade plagiarism programs see
int a = b
+ 2;
as token sequence
INT INDENT ASSIGN INDENT PLUS 2 SEMICOLON
All of your obfuscations are snake oil.
Figure that wouldn't take more than an afternoon to code up.
Could get even crazier by adding the ability to swap out loops ( foreach to while/for ), but those can impact overall grade and is language specific so it'd have to wait for v2.
Swapping code parts woul indeed challenge plagiarism programs. But, as you conceded, this is hard to implement without introducing errors.
What other major economic forces could account for this?
That one's easy. 1989/1990 also marks the end of the only large-scale, competing economic system to capitalism: socialism. Before, the stakeholders of capitalism had to prove that the masses benefit from it. This restriction is gone. Unrestricted capitalism benetfis capital, not people.
This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.