This needs an anti-trust lawsuit.

Why should this not be a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act?
My eyes cannot deal with the "flyspeck 3" fonts used by smart-phones, and as I result I cannot use one. Can I get the statutory $15K per violation specified by this US law?

See https://scitechdaily.com/scien...

This means that the climate-modeler assumptions about the lifetime of free CO2 in the atmosphere are out to lunch.

See https://judithcurry.com/2024/0...:

The analyses posted completely ignore the 2022 Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption, which increased the amount of the greenhouse gas water-vapor in the stratosphere by more than 10% in just one day. And, stratospheric circulation being as it is, that water vapor has a residence time of years.

That volcano-induced greenhouse effect is the largest cause of global warming over the last three years.

The Post, in their incompetent political correctness, ignores this.

According to Fred Brooks (father of the OS for IBM 360's, author of The Mythical Man Month, Turing award winner, and many other things):

If you are encountering a truly new programming problem,

1. You should do the best job you can of analysis, design, and implementation: if it is truly a new problem, your solution won't quite work.
2. Then throw it all out and take a two-month vacation;
3. Using that knowledge from the first system, do the best job you can of analysis, design, and implementation: the result will actually solve the original problem, but will be overly-complex and won't be robust nor extensible. The dangerous thing is to try to use this second system.
4. Instead, throw it all out and take a three-month vacation;
5. This time, when you do the best job you can of analysis, design, and implementation, the result will "solve the problem behind the problem" and will be elegant, robust, and extensible. Use this third system.

They clearly don't understand copyright law: Following the Berne (1980) Copyright Treaty, it's a copyright work as soon as it is "fixed" in non-transient form (e.g., RAM, disk, USB stick, CD, ...), unless it is either a "Work of the Government" or has an explicit, written declaration as public domain. FWIW

Requiring the use of a smart-phone is an ADA violation. And (for the next poster) when you look at GitHub's "authentication methods" documentation, devices such as YubiKeys are not listed...

Why the fuck would you be on your computer on Github without your phone somewhere in the same general vicinity?

For some of us, the "flyspeck-3" fonts used by smart-phones make them un-usable. This is a Federal-law matter (the Americans with Disabilities Act); note further that statutory damages for ADA violations start at $15,000 per offense... are you volunteering to pay that?

More than a decade ago, did a search on Amazon for "30 inch 2560x1600 monitor".

Only 3 of the top 10 results, and 7 of the top 25, actually met even the "30 inch" spec.

So "poor search results" is not a new thing.

24x7x24x7x365.2422 FWIW

$6,688.56 times 100 million people is something over $6billion...

Some of us have age related presbyopia which prevents us from being able to use mobile phones, with their "flyspeck 3" fonts. Requiring us to use such disability-prevented measures is an opne-anbd-shut (criminal!) violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. For civil actions, the minim,um statutory damages are $15,000 per offense - and precedent says that each attempt to play a game is a separate offense. Time for my lawyer to get rich...

For some of us, age related presbyopia makes the use of cell-phones untenable: we can't deal with the Flyspeck-3 fonts that these devices use. Not making allowance for that fact is an open-and-shut violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

FWIW.

This vulnerability is on Ulrich Drepper and his shared-libraries-only ideology.

Historically, executables in /bin and /sbin were statically linked -- for just this security reason. And he destroyed that.

The statement

Treatment with the dewormer drug ivermectin...

indicates a clear and strong bias against ivermectin on the part of the study authors.

In fact, ivermectin won a Nobel Prize for treating humans: see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/