It is hard to test LLM legal/medical advice without risk of harm, but it is often exceedingly easy to test LLM generated code. The most aggravating thing to me is that people just don't. I think the best thing we can do is to encourage everyone who uses/trusts LLMs to test and verify more often.

How can iText claim that adding Brotli is not a backward incompatible change (in the "Why keep encoding separate" table)? In the first section the author states that any new feature must work seamlessly with existing readers. New documents created that include this compression would be unintelligible to any reader that only supports Deflate.

Am I missing something? Adoption will take a long time if you can't be confident the receiver of a document or viewers of a publication will be able to open the file.

It's prototypish work to support it before it land's in the official specification. But it will indeed take some adoption time.

Because I'm doing the work to patch in support across different viewers to help adoption grow. And once the big opensource ones ship it pdfjs, poppler, pdfium, adoption can quickly rise.

There are old devices where the viewer can’t be patched. That’s killing one of the main features of PDF

I think the article takes issue not with fetching the code, but with fetching the go.mod file that contains index and dependency information. That’s why part of the solution was to host go.mod files separately.