I cannot think of a legitimate purpose for residential proxies existing. They take advantage of people who don't understand what they're being asked to give "consent" to, and then offer up those people's internet connections to whatever actor wants to abuse it, including malware authors, aggressive scrapers, and anyone with ill intent.
Why do you think this rampant abuse is a good thing? What benefit does this provide to society?
>We're choosing a license that is usable by the entire community.
What a weaselly way to put it.
A GPL library, as I'm sure you know, is perfectly usable by anyone including jujutsu and anyone else. They just have to also license under the GPL and this is no barrier to open source projects.
There's a part of the .so ELF file (the Global Offset Table aka GOT) that has to be modified with all the addresses of the functions being imported, which of course vary from process to process.
If not patching, what exactly would you call modifying part of the file?
How do you think position independent code can call functions from other .so's without being patched with their addresses?
They can't, so even PIC code still has to have a relocation table that gets patched. It's in a different page than the code though, so code does still get reused.
Shared libraries (and mmapped files in general) are deduplicated; it's nowhere near as bad as you think. The kernel loads a .so into memory once and then maps that memory into every process that mmaps it.
Editing to add: this deduplication is one of the greatest upsides to dynamic linking. Common libs like libgcc and libc only have to exist in memory once and can stay in CPU caches, whereas if they were statically linked into every binary, each binary would have a copy of that library that wouldn't be shared with anything else and you'd waste a lot of memory.
I just don't get why an image format needs the ceremony from being an international standard accepted by governments. It's just an image format; governments shouldn't be involved in this at all.
What did ISO give the JPEG XL team that made paywalling the standard worth it? Did ISO pay them or something?
Mostly off topic, but why is the spec for JPEG and JPEG XL paywalled? I wouldn't call them open standards if they're not available free-of-charge to the public.
This is false. Evaporative cooling systems consume significant amounts of water and do not reuse it. They can't anyway, recondensing the water would release all the heat they removed by evaporating it.
How are kids supposed to have a safe space "to be curious, build autonomy, and feel free" if they can't get out from the authoritarian hands of their parents or their government?