Yeah, a clearer explanation in the rejection email would have been nice, or perhaps even a warning in response to the proposal (though it's not 100% clear from the proposal alone that OP would be going down a path that ignores that part of the assignment.) But the prompt explicitly lists other terminal clients as the inspiration.
Also, the prompt for a terminal client really changes what they're testing! Email web UIs have been a known quantity for years. But the UX of a terminal client is still something that's not "solved." I suspect the rubric for the question has large sections about how they decide to make a terminal client that OP's submission doesn't address at all
There are not more bike lanes than real roads and to think that's even plausible shows how totally warped your understanding of reality is. most people in nyc do not drive, you're not advocating for "real people," you're advocating for a narrow, high-income subset of the city that you personally encounter
there's definitely an echo chamber in urbanist-type spaces, but your notion of "real people" is even more out of touch.
I guess, but the amount of space and inefficiency that building a highway that literally runs over 1 block over the middle of a city would seem to be not at all worth it.
An overpass tends to make the area underneath it pretty grim: surrounded by concrete with little natural light. I can't think of any examples of a nice shopping street with an overpass above it.
An underpass works well, but is likely to be much more expensive.
Seems unlikely that there would be 'enterprise features'... the value of Docker is that you can send a Dockerfile somewhere and it will work identically on each system. If they changed the feature-set of Docker EE it'd undermine the reason people use their product
I'd guess that if enterprise features were to appear, it would be higher up in the stack then "sending a Dockerfile somewhere". Container runtimes are becoming (or have already become) a commodity, so people are now chasing to get a slice of the orchestration pie before everyone standardizes on Kubernetes.
If the Enterprise Edition is a superset of Community Edition functionality, then this could definitely still happen. EE people could run all CE Dockerfiles, containers, etc., but EE people could also (for their own uses, or from enterprise vendors) run Enterprise docker containers, Dockerfiles, etc.
The situation could turn into something reminiscent of using non-RHEL/CentOS Linux in the enterprise before Ubuntu became popular. Using Debian and need drivers from a vendor? Here's an RPM! Convert it to a .deb, extract it yourself, hope it doesn't have scripts that'll break your install and that the paths work properly. Oh wait this is for a specific patched kernel that RHEL ships, now I have to go get the source and build it myself, but it only ships as patches to a kernel source tree of theirs.
Ubuntu's widespread support helped, and then the advent of VMs made it so that you could hypervisor your hardware and then not have to worry about support in your various OSes. And then vendors started shipping VM images (e.g. AeroFS), but only if you're using a supported virtualization solution (we support both ESIx and HyperV!). Now we have containers, and we can ship customized environments, stripped down and devoid of anything the app doesn't need, but how long until vendors start shipping those containers with assumptions about either the host or the environment/tooling that only works for the people who pay extra?
Also, the prompt for a terminal client really changes what they're testing! Email web UIs have been a known quantity for years. But the UX of a terminal client is still something that's not "solved." I suspect the rubric for the question has large sections about how they decide to make a terminal client that OP's submission doesn't address at all