How do you propose you sanity check numbers beyond checking whether or not they’re within a sane range, i.e. a hardcoded limit? It’s not like you can trust a monitor that’s potentially feeding you bad values to limit the number of bad values it gives you.
Either you’d be accessing the internet to query which monitor parameters are sensible each time a monitor connects, or you’d be periodically updating a list of sensible monitor parameters which is exactly what this update was.
If there are potentially buggy or broken monitors that sometimes report the wrong value, then a bounds check that enforces sane values makes sense. If the range of sane values changes decades later, then you’ll have to update things, but you’ll likely need to update other things on that timescale anyway, e.g. to support newer display connectors that support the new limits.
Reform aren’t devoid of ties to Russia, so where the UK’s national security is at odds with Putin’s interests, it won’t be a priority. Russian gas will never be sold to the UK again if the UK stops buying gas.
If it’s the problem that I’ve seen people complain about in the past, it’s effectively the same as HTTPS ‘not supporting’ end to end encryption because it runs over IP and IP packets contain the IP address of where they need to go, so someone can see that two IP addresses are communicating, which is unavoidable as otherwise there’s nothing to say where the data needs to go, so no way for it to get there. Someone did a blog post a couple of years ago claiming Matrix was unsecure as encrypted messages had their destination homeserver in plaintext, but that doesn’t carry any information that isn’t implied by the fact that the message is being sent to that homeserver’s IP.
If all the profiles are garbage, then: