There is none other than a heavier source like Wikipedia (heavy because the information is there but inconsistently buried in writing), but it is death by a thousand papercuts in terms of losing soft power.
No this feature is coming straight from the PDF association itself and we just added experimental support before it's officially in the spec to help testing between different sdk processors.
> As of March 2025, the current development version of MuPDF now supports reading PDF files with Brotli compression. The source is available from github.com/ArtifexSoftware/mupdf, and will be included as an experimental feature in the upcoming 1.26.0 release.
> Similarly, the latest development version of Ghostscript can now read PDF files with Brotli compression. File creation functionality is underway. The next official Ghostscript release is scheduled for August this year, but the source is available now from github.com/ArtifexSoftware/Ghostpdl.
Yes, I do not see any source of financial gain that could motivate them for this, because both MuPDF and Ghostscript are free.
MuPDF is an excellent PDF reader, the fastest that I have ever tested. There are plenty of big PDF files where most other readers are annoyingly slow.
It is my default PDF and EPUB reader, except that in very rare cases I encounter PDF files which MuPDF cannot understand, when I use other PDF readers (e.g. Okular).
I'm no fan of Adobe, but it is not that hard to add brotli support given that it is open. Probably can be added by AI without much difficulty - it is a simple feature. I think compared to the ton of other complex features PDF has, this is an easy one.
I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push.
Farmers really like their guns, not because they need it to compensate for themselves, but because they really do largely live in areas where the local police response is 30+ minutes because they are in sparsely populated counties that are just farms, farms and more farms.
A very high profile mainstream Republican proposed the most severe anti-gun policy I think anyone at his level ever has: taking guns without due process. And they still voted to reelect him twice. The idea that the GOP is not anti-gun is a fantasy.
> I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push.
Anything specific? Because from where I sit, the Dems aren't anywhere near as strict as they should be wrt to gun control.
Or are you just believing the stuff you're hearing from conservative media? Are you really of the belief that "farmers" need assault rifles? What about bump stocks?
How many school shooting have we had? What legislation came from those? Can you even name any?
I would say 2 bills that won't pass from state assemblies in 2026 (after decades of school shootings) aren't exactly stellar examples of major legislation that has passed to restrict gun ownership.
There's been maybe 1 in the last decade. And really, providing an example of Democrats trying to reign in ghost guns sorta proves my point. You're average citizen can not only buy guns easily, they can make them too!!!!
GSoC 4 years ago removed the need for their to be actual students to apply. We got flooded with middle aged men working 9-5s applying. It was dumb and we stopped participating. Their incentives were literally "extra income" instead of learning or participating beyond that.
If you take a look at marketshare, Americans are animals that spend well beyond their means in bulk. Apple products or Samsung products dominate the smartphone market and it's the expensive ones.
To be fair I know a nontrivial number of people who bought their iPhones used. I’m sure that happens in the android market, but it doesn’t seem to be as common in the US. I think the fact that iPhones have offered acceptable support for much longer than android has helps a lot there.
Advertising alternatives to trademarked names is completely legal in every sense.
It's known as comparative advertising and is established for more than a century.
You simply cannot pretend to be that trademark product/business and you cannot disparage that trademark.
> You simply cannot pretend to be that trademark product/business
Some fraction of consumers are duped. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many knockoffs.
If I enter Acme Orbital Thrusters into a search engine, the exact match, their actual website, must be the top hit. Otherwise it's a racket, not a search engine.
What if Acme Orbital Thrusters is a long-running, covered-up fraudster? Why should they get to automatically outrank sites exposing their crimes?
Or what about when there are multiple trademarks for different goods and services from different companies that are all exact matches for the search terms?
Trademarks differentiate products. App Store is full of shady clones with near identical icons, screenshots and names that differ from the original by a few letters.
reply