I'd rather live through my 80s without much struggling. Longevity and quality of life until the end. And I try to live in the way that lends itself towards that.
But of course there is, it's part of POSIX, implemented in libc. And if you're using a higher level language, they all have their own wrappers around libc/POSIX APIs. Here is golang's: https://pkg.go.dev/os/user
If it used one of the standard system APIs for looking up user accounts (e.g. getpwnam(3)), there's no way it can happen.
This is incredibly bad engineering, on level of a SQL injection, in 21st century. Something a highschool student experimenting with scripting could come up with, but not a supposedly professional software company.
The proper fix would be to not use getent CLI tool in their logic, but instead use proper system APIs for looking up user account entries, like one of earlier comments here already mentions. This is shocking amateur hour!
My guess is they hastily threw together something hacky in early development, and forgot to replace it with a real, safe solution later.
Unless you're trying to do something like high frequency stock trading, this does not really matter. Most of the added latency is added in the hops themselves, as packets are being classified and routed. Your generic Internet user won't be able to see any difference.
I have the exact opposite experience with Anki. I use it to memorize vocabulary of a language I'm learning, a language completely different to other languages I know, and my retention before and after I started using Anki is night and day. Frankly, I was floored once I realized how much faster I was learning, and how easily I can recall even words I last practiced or used months ago.
I make and maintain my own cards/notes, which I think is part of why it works so well - it's tailored to my learning, not to someone else's.
That's because Unified Attestation is unsalvageable. It's basically the same scam as Google's, with different owners doing (or wanting to do) the extortion.
I'd like to point out that it only "gets pulled in" if the data is actually made available by the government, and there are dedicated volunteers who work on getting the data, massaging it into the right format and importing it into OSM, and that is not the case in many countries.
The seemingly duplicate data on crossing is because there are different "parts" of the crossing, intended for different users.
There is the path across the road, usually from one sidewalk to the opposite, which is meant for pedestrians, and there is the node where this path touches the road, which is meant for car drivers.
Yes, the system could be improved by grouping these somehow, maybe using relations (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation ), but that would add complexity to any navigation or rendering application using OSM data that wants to process information about crossings.
Can you give examples of what you consider "nasty attitude" on their part? All criticism of other project I've seen was either cold, clinical technical criticism, or defense against slander propagated in the media against GrapheneOS.
I haven't seen GrapheneOS folks going out of their way to attack anyone.