Presuming the translation was correct I would "agree to comply with Chinese laws ... [and] grant the company a non-exclusive, free, perpetual license for global use (including modification, display, and derivative development)."
But then example show that it does support `&&`? Why the difference? I pretty much always write
RUN foo && \
bar && \
:
but it seems syntactically identical to the also valid RUN set -e && \
foo ; \
bar ; \
:
I find it more readable and portable.
[1] https://www.docker.com/blog/introduction-to-heredocs-in-dock...
Deleted Comment
I've been visiting https://polioeradication.org/ over the years, and every time I get my hopes high, discover more polio cases or polio-positive samples are discovered :(
They have a regularly updates summary: https://polioeradication.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/week...
And the most recent case was on Oct 15 in Pakistan.
OTOH, he may have been quite aware that "read more Asimov, and be more smug about being right more often" was a major motive for people buying his non-fiction writing.
Useful discussion is an interesting scope for someone with the broad, in-depth knowledge of a vast array of subjects he demonstrates in the linked essay.