I see that you're parsing `ss` output in 'src/services/network.rs' (L22-L31) [1]. I find this to be a rather shaky foundation as any future drift or deviation in the `ss` utility's output could potentially yield unforeseen consequences.
I'm vaguely aware that there are crates available in the Rust ecosystem for interrogating and manipulating sockets much more directly as well as high level abstractions for all things netlink (read: AF_NETLINK). Is wielding Rust's socket/netlink libraries unsuitable in some way, or was it merely deemed out of the design scope?
This seems to be posted once per year (at least); however, hardly a complaint as the discussion tends to be high quality.
My personal mantra is if it's over 10~20 lines, I should arguably be using another language, like Python (and perhaps correspondingly, subprocess [2], if I'm in a hurry).
It's time to stop using these archaic shells, and make sure the newer ones are packaged for and included with popular operating systems. Better scripting languages have been offered in shells for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsh
I think https://oils.pub/ has a good shot at being the eventual replacement because it has a very strong transition story. Being backward compatible, while allowing you to progressively embrace a modern replacement, is pretty powerful.
i don't think nushell is better than bash for day to day things. it is nice when you need it though, and then you can just run it, like with any shell.
Why would you do that when nushell is strictly better? It's bash that I drop into when I rarely need to, which is when someone gives a bash recipe, not nushell.
I worked my way through about half the examples. What appalling behavior by several of the "submitters".
This comment [1] by icing (curl staff) sums up the risk:
> "This report and your other one seem like an attack on our resources to handle security issues."
Maintainers of widely deployed, popular software, including those whom have openly made a commitment to engineering excellence [2] and responsiveness [like the curl project AFAICT], can not afford to /not/ treat each submission with some level of preliminary attention and seriousness.
Submitting low quality, bogus reports generated by a hallucinating LLM, and then doubling down by being deliberately opaque and obtuse during the investigation and discussion, is disgraceful.
I am a Python user, but far from an expert. Occasionally, I've used 'concurrent.futures' to kick off running some very simple functions, at the same time.
How are 'concurrent.futures' users impacted? What will I need to change moving forward?
It’s going to get faster since threads won’t be locked on GIL. If you’re locking shared objects correctly or not using them all, then you should be good.
Arathorn, should this message reach you, I want to voice my support of you and your team.
Notwithstanding the naysayers that surface with peculiar predictability any time Matrix is discussed here, know there are people like me that are happy Synapse users (and operators, nearly 5 years now!) that are in your corner, rooting for you [and Matrix]. Keep fighting the good fight.
Agreed. Open source is an ecosystem. And ecosystems need to be healthy to grow. Matrix is not a hobby project that a couple of hackers implement in their free time but a large project that requires full-time developers. But if these developers don't get paid, then we (the community) won't get improvements for matrix software.
Synapse Pro is a compromise to keep the ship afloat. This is not a matter of greed, but a matter of keeping the lights on.
Thank you - and to the sibling comments too; the support is enormously appreciated.
For what it’s worth, we have been frantically trying to keep all Synapse dev FOSS for the last 10 years - and the FOSS version will always be the primary project, where everything new happens (other than mega-scalability work). At least for as long as we’re able to work on it.
My hope is that Synapse Pro will be net positive for the ecosystem, as it will hopefully fund us to be able to work more on FOSS Synapse. It could also inspire more alternative homeserver work, which is no bad thing for Matrix as a whole.
I had to go to the project's GitHub repo for a semblance of a description. For the uninitiated:
> Hyprland is an independent, highly customizable, dynamic tiling Wayland compositor that doesn't sacrifice on its looks. It provides the latest Wayland features, is highly customizable, has all the eyecandy, the most powerful plugins, easy IPC, much more QoL stuff than other compositors and more...
I tried the website’s logo/“home” button in the top-left and did go to the homepage, but also got an autoplay video - yikes! On mobile it’s a very jarring experience to have the whole screen start playing a video demo
Thanks for this guidance. In times like these, I find sunlight is always the best disinfectant.
The yt-dlp application functions better alongside ffmpeg, so I recommend installing that too. If on Linux, whatever is available via one's package manager /should/ do the trick.
Note, the project does make mention there are issues [1] with "standard ffmpeg", and is therefore minting custom builds [2][3] of ffmpeg, with additional patches applied.
Things are indeed heating up when a saga that's been unfolding for over four years begins to attract attention on HN.
A user or two have characterized Gill's activity as a pump-and-dump. From the article:
> A common form of this fraud is a pump-and-dump scheme, where fraudsters "make false and misleading statements to create a buying frenzy, and then sell shares at the pumped-up price."
Gill took a significant position in Gamestop beginning in June 2019 [1], and has been steadily increasing his position over the years (AFAICT without selling).
How is the belief in the long-term recovery and turn around of what was then, a dysfunctional (and unprofitable) American retailer, anything but rather prescient and patriotic?
Even if we were to concede that Gill is now in a position of influence, the suggestion that enforcement agencies should suddenly jump in and that litigation should /begin/ with him, rather than TV personalities and elected officials, strikes me as laughable.
Notwithstanding the ethical and security implications of a brokerage publicly broadcasting that a customer has an account on their platform (I would be livid if this happened to me), if E-Trade were to close Gill's account, would that not be a concrete admission that his position has them vulnerable, thereby strengthening and supporting the underlying thesis?
Quite interesting indeed. From Gamestop's recent Form 10-K (Q4 2023) SEC filing:
> "As of March 20, 2024 [...] approximately 75.3 million shares of our Class A common stock were held by registered holders with our transfer agent (or approximately 25% of our outstanding shares)."
I've never seen anything like this. It seems absolutely unprecedented.
Recently Ian Carroll posted an overview [2] on X where he attempts to untangle the mess of the chaos surrounding Gamestop and its stock. I'm not going to pretend to understand the (dys?)function of our financial markets or everything that he shared, but my eyes are peeled.
> Recently Ian Carroll posted an overview [2] on X where he attempts to untangle the mess of the chaos surrounding Gamestop and its stock. I'm not going to pretend to understand the (dys?)function of our financial markets or everything that he shared, but my eyes are peeled.
So just so you're aware... this is not a good source for financial understanding. This is the financial equivalent of someone who struggled with high school physics going to the Wikipedia article on quantum chromodynamics to then turn around and explain it to you.
Like, the explanation of derivatives is wrong. Leverage has nothing to do with derivatives; derivatives are essentially trades that are trading on the value of another asset rather than the asset itself.
The short answer as to what has happened is GameStop is a video game retailer that hasn't been managing the trend to digital distribution. For $REASONS, the stock experienced a massive bump in 2021. The rapid inflation caused Robinhood (among a few other apps, but mostly Robinhood) to suspend the ability to buy shares, for reasons beyond proponents' ken [1]... which caused it to be interpreted as some financial conspiracy to keep the hedge funds alive at the expense of regular people. When the resulting short squeeze proved less calamitous than expected [2], the people who bought high have turned to increasing amounts of copium to motivate why the short squeeze hasn't happened yet, and turned to anything they can find that might enable them to trigger the "real" short squeeze (which at this point is no longer a mere short squeeze but a total financial apocalypse).
[1] The simplest explanation (though not entirely accurate, it is sufficient to get the reasons why across) is that Robinhood was borrowing money to buy the stocks on users' behalf, and the counterparties effectively did a margin call on Robinhood.
Short answer: the people doing this think it's going to fuck short sellers over.
The longer answer involves trying to make a coherent story by people who are financially illiterate trying to read moderately advanced modern finance textbooks to explain why they were unsuccessful in fleecing Big Bad Finance™ by somehow finding a way to trigger financial apocalypse. The more you try to understand it, the less sense it is going to make.
I'd rather say they are trying to prove some things to the general public.
People new to the stock market assume that when they buy shares through their broker, they own the share. They also often buy shares in hopes that the stock price will go up.
However, more often than not, a broker will hand out an IOU when you "buy" a share, and then proceed to rent out the share to short sellers. You buy a share in hopes that the price will go up, but that share is then used for the opposite.
Buying a share through the company's registered custodian prevents this.
They also want to show the general public that even when 100% of a company's shares are bought, owned and locked down - short sellers are still able to generate phantom shares to move the stock price down.
> However, more often than not, a broker will hand out an IOU when you "buy" a share, and then proceed to rent out the share to short sellers
There are specific stock lending programs, but can you back up the claim that brokers are silently lending shares from the portfolio of people who did not opt in to such a program?
Good question. What that quote from the recent filing is describing is the result of investors using the "Direct Registration System" (DRS), which is a system for book-entry ownership [1][2].
Given the example of risk HN user /deified/ shared regarding suspicions of brokers clandestinely distributing IOUs without investor knowledge where they should, in fact, be purchasing real shares, DRS offers the ability to move shares from one's broker to the company's transfer agent.
In effect, what DRS seemingly provides is a far more robust chain of trust and custody, as well as a more concrete level of assurance that shares in one's account are, in fact, real (and not IOUs).
In this case, the 10-K filing provides direct evidence that investors are consistently moving their Gamestop shares out of their respective brokers, to Gamestop's transfer agent, a company called Computershare (or purchasing shares directly via Computershare).
A conclusion one could possibly draw from this is that hundreds of thousands of Gamestop investors have collectively agreed that they can no longer trust their brokers, they are fed up with the true reality [and limitations] of "beneficial ownership", and are instead registering their Gamestop shares with the transfer agent (Computershare). All to the tune now of 25% of the total outstanding shares. As far as I'm aware, behavior of this magnitude has never before occurred.
Should that percentage continue to climb, it will be interesting to see what effect (if any) it will have on Gamestop's share price, assuming true supply and demand and real price discovery is still a fundamental part of how our markets function.
Ian released a video [3] this past December 2023, related to this topic.
I'm vaguely aware that there are crates available in the Rust ecosystem for interrogating and manipulating sockets much more directly as well as high level abstractions for all things netlink (read: AF_NETLINK). Is wielding Rust's socket/netlink libraries unsuitable in some way, or was it merely deemed out of the design scope?
Very cool project, please keep going!
[1] https://github.com/grigio/network-monitor/blob/master/src/se...