Reminds me of the mosquito laser. It would target only female mosquitos of the specific breed (they are the malaria carriers).
It was only prototyped and never commercially produced.
Yup, this is Google's AOL moment. The execs can't do anything at this point besides throw tantrums and demand more shit be put on the dumpster fire. More ads. More seo spam.
Disable calling functions in transitive dependencies, force them to be direct dependencies.
Why should sshd be allowed to call an xz function directly without xz being an immediate dependency.
I'm not sure what all that would entail with the ifunc stuff, but I remember encountering a glibc linking change moving from Red Hat 6 to RH7 that did something similar and broke the build process for some legacy code.
Give me an example of something that is moral and unethical, and example of something that is immoral and ethical. Once you do that, we can get to the real difference.
If the prosecutor knows the defendant is innocent, it is arguably unethical to prosecute him. The ABA Standards on the Prosecution Function 3-4.3(d): "A prosecutor’s office should not file or maintain charges if it believes the defendant is innocent, no matter what the state of the evidence."
Note that few if any jurisdictions have adopted this as binding. It's unlikely that a prosecutor would lose their license over what you propose. But it's nevertheless arguably unethical.
I'd change the second example from "knows is innocent" to "believes is innocent".
If the prosecutor "knows" they're innocent, then their argument against would be either untrue or purposefully withholding crucial information, which would make it an unethical argument.
Is this really specific to prosecutors? I feel like it would work in reverse with an incompetent prosecutor and a defense lawyer who knows his client is actually guilty. What stands out to me in those examples is that the difference is occurring because of a conflict between an explicit, codified set of rules (the code of ethics that lawyers operate under) and a perceived greater good that isn't being enforced or codified. To me, this makes it seem like the difference between ethics and morals is that ethics are codified and enforced in some sense (i.e. there's some authority with the ability to mete out punishments for violations), whereas morality covers right and wrong independent of consequences. I think in a moral context, the intent of an ethical code is to define the morality of various actions, but the question of whether something abides by those ethics is orthogonal to whether the action is moral or not; people might agree that a code of ethics says something but disagree whether what it says is moral or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser