I'm wagering that Epic Games considers those things to be the things that Valve actually does right.
Which is their whole problem, they value the shittiest facet of Valve and think the 'good stuff' is where they screw up, and bemoan that Epic can't get the worst stuff going because Valve is an option in the market.
While the stock policies have been refined to model more of an average user's usage, the facility itself remains a PITA when people do trip over it. File operations that mess up contexts, use cases that don't quite fit the policy, use cases that are well recognized but SELinux blocks it by default anyway until you change an sebool.
By being a security mechanism bolted on after the fact, various operations fail in ways that are mysterious because they can't inject explanatory information into the failure path. Further the audit log that you pretty much always need to consult when something fails for mysterious reasons in case it might be SELinux isn't even readable by the user that got dinged. So I can't even code in a way to check if SELinux was the reason and guide the user, instead I have to provide a diagnostic utility they have to 'sudo' to explain to them, or be vague and say 'check if selinux is somehow involved. So I end up despite doing my damndest to not run with privilege asking users to run something with privilege to check a security mechanism.
The existence and usage of audit2allow is a big sign of problematic design. How to fix something you see in auditlog is hard for people to understand, so they just audit2allow to amend policy, but instead they should have done a chcon because now they have a crap rule allowing something they shouldn't, but SELinux is still enabled so all good!
The whole label based concept is a fun whole other dimension of things for people to worry about. Messed up so often that we have a nice convenient 'restorecon' to basically apply the way AppArmor does things to the filesystem in that moment.
The curve could follow someone's journey with complexity, starting out with the prejudice that SELinux is bad, then letting SELinux happen and noticing no issues, and then moving on to realms where they actually have to touch the goop of SELinux instead of the canned distro SELinux setup covering their use case.
I think for a long term committed relationship, if one person is decades older than the other, the older one must not care much about the quality of life of the younger.
Might be all fun and games in the moment, but you are on a trajectory to probably inflict elder care on that partner down the road. Being tied down to a tired old person instead of someone that can keep up with them.
Maybe if the older person is rich enough to ensure others provide the care and the relationship is open, or if the relationship is mutually agreed to be a short term one before the age related deterioration is likely to really set in. But generally I don't think this is the case.
I would counter that "AI clean rooming" is not clean rooming, because they are feeding the actual code to imitate directly. Even ignoring the training, it has, verbatim, the object code and is trying to make code that compiles to match the object code. It isn't deriving the functions to a spec and the using the spec to go back to code.
I would further counter that the Compaq case dovetails with the idea that APIs are broadly not copyrightable in and of themselves. Compaq cloned a thin ABI layer, which was not considered substantial by itself, so the argument rested with whether the implementing backend necessarily infringed in resemblance or if resemblance derived from merely following a similar asked. If you clone an entire application down to the human presentation, I think no "clean room" argument would overcome that you cloned far more than some thin application to library interface.
Oh, based on my experience, there are plenty of people convinced they can't do anything without Claude anymore. Also based on my experience, I would be ecstatic if they actually stopped trying to do work because they sucked both with and without Claude.
Maybe not enough to fund their financials, but that was going to be a tall order anyway.
Yeah, that can be tricky. Under a previous manager where mostly he was ignored and I worked straight with the middle management, I had gotten the hang of the people inflicting the politics and crap and was significantly able to directly counter it to avoid spurious bullshit.
Then when that manager got laid off, and I got a new "I'll shield you" manager, who largely just takes whatever crap he's told and passes it on and says it's better to just take it than risk making waves. So I end up having to waste more time than I used to.
But absolutely was valuable in an early manager who took on the politics direct while I just did my work in early career. Of course he got fired for keeping documentation on a certain executive making a terrible call and actually sharing it with the senior leadership team when that terrible call went bad. Senior executives canned the executive, but let him fire the manager on the way out. Guess if there's one thing worse than an executive incurring risk, it's a snitch.
Even wilder, their fate stemmed from taking over McDonnal Douglas. That company was in bad shape because of their shit business leadership. After being acquired by Boeing, they got put in charge because investors thought they would be better at the business side despite having just run a company into the ground.
Applies to a lot of fields.
I have been in scenarios where business leaders doing their thing are frustrated by a competitor that has better product and better customer treatment (pricing, support, no superfluous subscriptions...)
Rather than adopt some of those business principles, they instead think that the competitors people are just betterexcept their leadership, that if they were in charge of the competitor company it would do way better, with good product and the better business practices like fucking up support, charging moore upfront, cutting employees, and hooking customers with subscriptions.
With many public companies, they have succeeded in convincing investors they are right and investors put them in charge.
A lot of folks got a very concrete reminder of how little regard management has for their judgement, even if not laid off or fired.
It wasn't "have access to new AI tools and use them as appropriate", it was "use these tools, they can do your job better than you can and you are an idiot if you think otherwise".
Note that a lot of IT stuff is much cheaper on-premise in very short timelines, but still businesses throw money at subscriptions for it anyway.
The thing is the market share is owed not to anti-competitive behavior, it's mostly about almost every other comer having some bullshit agenda that actively makes them put forward a worse option.
GOG being an exception, mostly held back by lack of resources rather than the sorts of things Jim Sweeney want.