Search Results: "ban"

This post should have marked the beginning of my yearly roundups of the favourite books and movies I read and watched in 2023. However, due to coming down with a nasty bout of flu recently and other sundry commitments, I wasn't able to undertake writing the necessary four or five blog posts In lieu of this, however, I will simply present my (unordered and unadorned) highlights for now. Do get in touch if this (or any of my previous posts) have spurred you into picking something up yourself

Books

Films Recent releases

The Blue Caftan (Maryam Touzani, 2022)
The Eight Mountains (Felix van Groeningen & Charlotte Vandermeersch, 2022)
Evil Does Not Exist (Ryusuke Hamaguchi, 2023)
Killers of the Flower Moon (Martin Scorcese, 2023)
Monster (Hirokazu Kore-eda, 2023)
Passages (Ira Sachs, 2023)
Poor Things (Yorgos Lanthimos, 2023)
The Tuba Thieves (Alison O Daniel, 2023)
Theater Camp (Molly Gordon and Nick Lieberman, 2023)
T R (Todd Field, 2022)

Unenjoyable experiences included Alejandro G mez Monteverde's Sound of Freedom (2023), Alex Garland's Men (2022) and Steven Spielberg's The Fabelmans (2022).
Older releases (Films released before 2022, and not including rewatches from previous years.)

Brief Encounter (David Lean, 1945)
Clouds of Sils Maria (Olivier Assayas, 2014)
Daisy Miller (Peter Bogdanovich, 1974)
First Reformed (Paul Schrader, 2017)
Forbidden Games (Ren Cl ment, 1952)
La Noire de... (Ousmane Semb ne, 1966)
The Queen of Spades (Thorold Dickinson, 1949)
The River (Jean Renoir, 1951)
Topsy-Turvy (Mike Leigh, 1999)
Le Trou (Jacques Becker, 1960)

Distinctly unenjoyable watches included Ocean's Eleven (1960), El Topo (1970), L olo (1992), Hotel Mumbai (2018), Bulworth (1998) and and The Big Red One (1980).

A woman wearing a red sleeveless dress; from the waist up it is fitted, while the skirt flares out. There is a white border with red embroidery and black fringe at the hem and a belt of the same material at the waist.

By the influencers on the famous proprietary video platform¹. When I m crafting with no powertools I tend to watch videos, and this autumn I ve seen a few in a row that were making red wool dresses, at least one or two medieval kirtles. I don t remember which channels they were, and I ve decided not to go back and look for them, at least for a time. A woman wearing a red shirt with wide sleeves, a short yoke, a small collar band and 3 buttons in the front.

A woman wearing a red shirt with wide sleeves, a short yoke, a small collar band and 3 buttons in the front.

Anyway, my brain suddenly decided that I needed a red wool dress, fitted enough to give some bust support. I had already made a dress that satisfied the latter requirement and I still had more than half of the red wool faille I ve used for the Garibaldi blouse (still not blogged, but I will get to it), and this time I wanted it to be ready for this winter. While the pattern I was going to use is Victorian, it was designed for underwear, and this was designed to be outerwear, so from the very start I decided not to bother too much with any kind of historical details or techniques. A few meters of wool-imitation fringe trim rolled up; the fringe is black and is attached to a white band with a line of lozenge outlines in red and brown.

A few meters of wool-imitation fringe trim rolled up; the fringe is black and is attached to a white band with a line of lozenge outlines in red and brown.

I knew that I didn t have enough fabric to add a flounce to the hem, as in the cotton dress, but then I remembered that some time ago I fell for a piece of fringed trim in black, white and red. I did a quick check that the red wasn t clashing (it wasn t) and I knew I had a plan for the hem decoration. Then I spent a week finishing other projects, and the more I thought about this dress, the more I was tempted to have spiral lacing at the front rather than buttons, as a nod to the kirtle inspiration. It may end up be a bit of a hassle, but if it is too much I can always add a hidden zipper on a side seam, and only have to undo a bit of the lacing around the neckhole to wear the dress. Finally, I could start working on the dress: I cut all of the main pieces, and since the seam lines were quite curved I marked them with tailor s tacks, which I don t exactly enjoy doing or removing, but are the only method that was guaranteed to survive while manipulating this fabric (and not leave traces afterwards). A shaped piece of red fabric with the long edges bound in navy blue bias tape and all the seamlines marked with basting thread.

A shaped piece of red fabric with the long edges bound in navy blue bias tape and all the seamlines marked with basting thread.

While cutting the front pieces I accidentally cut the high neck line instead of the one I had used on the cotton dress: I decided to go for it also on the back pieces and decide later whether I wanted to lower it. Since this is a modern dress, with no historical accuracy at all, and I have access to a serger, I decided to use some dark blue cotton voile I ve had in my stash for quite some time, cut into bias strip, to bind the raw edges before sewing. This works significantly better than bought bias tape, which is a bit too stiff for this. A bigger piece of fabric with tailor's tacks for the seams and darts; at the top edge there is a strip of navy blue fabric sewn to a wide seaming allowance, with two rows of cording closest to the center front line.

A bigger piece of fabric with tailor's tacks for the seams and darts; at the top edge there is a strip of navy blue fabric sewn to a wide seaming allowance, with two rows of cording closest to the center front line.

For the front opening, I ve decided to reinforce the areas where the lacing holes will be with cotton: I ve used some other navy blue cotton, also from the stash, and added two lines of cording to stiffen the front edge. So I ve cut the front in two pieces rather than on the fold, sewn the reinforcements to the sewing allowances in such a way that the corded edge was aligned with the center front and then sewn the bottom of the front seam from just before the end of the reinforcements to the hem. The front opening being worked on: on one side there are hand sewn eyelets in red silk that matches the fabric, on the other side the position for more eyelets are still marked with pins. There is also still basting to keep the folded allowance in place.

The front opening being worked on: on one side there are hand sewn eyelets in red silk that matches the fabric, on the other side the position for more eyelets are still marked with pins. There is also still basting to keep the folded allowance in place.

The allowances are then folded back, and then they are kept in place by the worked lacing holes. The cotton was pinked, while for the wool I used the selvedge of the fabric and there was no need for any finishing. Behind the opening I ve added a modesty placket: I ve cut a strip of red wool, a strip of cotton, folded the edge of the strip of cotton to the center, added cording to the long sides, pressed the allowances of the wool towards the wrong side, and then handstitched the cotton to the wool, wrong sides facing. This was finally handstitched to one side of the sewing allowance of the center front. I ve also decided to add real pockets, rather than just slits, and for some reason I decided to add them by hand after I had sewn the dress, so I ve left opening in the side back seams, where the slits were in the cotton dress. I ve also already worn the dress, but haven t added the pockets yet, as I m still debating about their shape. This will be fixed in the near future. Another thing that will have to be fixed is the trim situation: I like the fringe at the bottom, and I had enough to also make a belt, but this makes the top of the dress a bit empty. I can t use the same fringe tape, as it is too wide, but it would be nice to have something smaller that matches the patterned part. And I think I can make something suitable with tablet weaving, but I m not sure on which materials to use, so it will have to be on hold for a while, until I decide on the supplies and have the time for making it. Another improvement I d like to add are detached sleeves, both matching (I should still have just enough fabric) and contrasting, but first I want to learn more about real kirtle construction, and maybe start making sleeves that would be suitable also for a real kirtle. Meanwhile, I ve worn it on Christmas (over my 1700s menswear shirt with big sleeves) and may wear it again tomorrow (if I bother to dress up to spend New Year s Eve at home :D )

yep, that s YouTube, of course.

Review: A Study in Scarlet, by Arthur Conan Doyle

Series:	Sherlock Holmes #1
Publisher:	AmazonClassics
Copyright:	1887
Printing:	February 2018
ISBN:	1-5039-5525-7
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	159

A Study in Scarlet is the short mystery novel (probably a novella, although I didn't count words) that introduced the world to Sherlock Holmes. I'm going to invoke the 100-year-rule and discuss the plot of this book rather freely on the grounds that even someone who (like me prior to a few days ago) has not yet read it is probably not that invested in avoiding all spoilers. If you do want to remain entirely unspoiled, exercise caution before reading on. I had somehow managed to avoid ever reading anything by Arthur Conan Doyle, not even a short story. I therefore couldn't be sure that some of the assertions I was making in my review of A Study in Honor were correct. Since A Study in Scarlet would be quick to read, I decided on a whim to do a bit of research and grab a free copy of the first Holmes novel. Holmes is such a part of English-speaking culture that I thought I had a pretty good idea of what to expect. This was largely true, but cultural osmosis had somehow not prepared me for the surprise Mormons. A Study in Scarlet establishes the basic parameters of a Holmes story: Dr. James Watson as narrator, the apartment he shares with Holmes at 221B Baker Street, the Baker Street Irregulars, Holmes's competition with police detectives, and his penchant for making leaps of logical deduction from subtle clues. The story opens with Watson meeting Holmes, agreeing to split the rent of a flat, and being baffled by the apparent randomness of Holmes's fields of study before Holmes reveals he's a consulting detective. The first case is a murder: a man is found dead in an abandoned house, without a mark on him although there are blood splatters on the walls and the word "RACHE" written in blood. Since my only prior exposure to Holmes was from cultural references and a few TV adaptations, there were a few things that surprised me. One is that Holmes is voluble and animated rather than aloof. Doyle is clearly going for passionate eccentric rather than calculating mastermind. Another is that he is intentionally and unabashedly ignorant on any topic not related to solving mysteries.

My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it. "You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it." "To forget it!" "You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you chose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

This is directly contrary to my expectation that the best way to make leaps of deduction is to know something about a huge range of topics so that one can draw unexpected connections, particularly given the puzzle-box construction and odd details so beloved in classic mysteries. I'm now curious if Doyle stuck with this conception, and if there were any later mysteries that involved astronomy. Speaking of classic mysteries, A Study in Scarlet isn't quite one, although one can see the shape of the genre to come. Doyle does not "play fair" by the rules that have not yet been invented. Holmes at most points knows considerably more than the reader, including bits of evidence that are not described until Holmes describes them and research that Holmes does off-camera and only reveals when he wants to be dramatic. This is not the sort of story where the reader is encouraged to try to figure out the mystery before the detective. Rather, what Doyle seems to be aiming for, and what Watson attempts (unsuccessfully) as the reader surrogate, is slightly different: once Holmes makes one of his grand assertions, the reader is encouraged to guess what Holmes might have done to arrive at that conclusion. Doyle seems to want the reader to guess technique rather than outcome, while providing only vague clues in general descriptions of Holmes's behavior at a crime scene. The structure of this story is quite odd. The first part is roughly what you would expect: first-person narration from Watson, supposedly taken from his journals but not at all in the style of a journal and explicitly written for an audience. Part one concludes with Holmes capturing and dramatically announcing the name of the killer, who the reader has never heard of before. Part two then opens with... a western?

In the central portion of the great North American Continent there lies an arid and repulsive desert, which for many a long year served as a barrier against the advance of civilization. From the Sierra Nevada to Nebraska, and from the Yellowstone River in the north to the Colorado upon the south, is a region of desolation and silence. Nor is Nature always in one mood throughout the grim district. It comprises snow-capped and lofty mountains, and dark and gloomy valleys. There are swift-flowing rivers which dash through jagged ca ons; and there are enormous plains, which in winter are white with snow, and in summer are grey with the saline alkali dust. They all preserve, however, the common characteristics of barrenness, inhospitality, and misery.

First, I have issues with the geography. That region contains some of the most beautiful areas on earth, and while a lot of that region is arid, describing it primarily as a repulsive desert is a bit much. Doyle's boundaries and distances are also confusing: the Yellowstone is a northeast-flowing river with its source in Wyoming, so the area between it and the Colorado does not extend to the Sierra Nevadas (or even to Utah), and it's not entirely clear to me that he realizes Nevada exists. This is probably what it's like for people who live anywhere else in the world when US authors write about their country. But second, there's no Holmes, no Watson, and not even the pretense of a transition from the detective novel that we were just reading. Doyle just launches into a random western with an omniscient narrator. It features a lean, grizzled man and an adorable child that he adopts and raises into a beautiful free spirit, who then falls in love with a wild gold-rush adventurer. This was written about 15 years before the first critically recognized western novel, so I can't blame Doyle for all the cliches here, but to a modern reader all of these characters are straight from central casting. Well, except for the villains, who are the Mormons. By that, I don't mean that the villains are Mormon. I mean Brigham Young is the on-page villain, plotting against the hero to force his adopted daughter into a Mormon harem (to use the word that Doyle uses repeatedly) and ruling Salt Lake City with an iron hand, border guards with passwords (?!), and secret police. This part of the book was wild. I was laughing out-loud at the sheer malevolent absurdity of the thirty-day countdown to marriage, which I doubt was the intended effect. We do eventually learn that this is the backstory of the murder, but we don't return to Watson and Holmes for multiple chapters. Which leads me to the other thing that surprised me: Doyle lays out this backstory, but then never has his characters comment directly on the morality of it, only the spectacle. Holmes cares only for the intellectual challenge (and for who gets credit), and Doyle sets things up so that the reader need not concern themselves with aftermath, punishment, or anything of that sort. I probably shouldn't have been surprised this does fit with the Holmes stereotype but I'm used to modern fiction where there is usually at least some effort to pass judgment on the events of the story. Doyle draws very clear villains, but is utterly silent on whether the murder is justified. Given its status in the history of literature, I'm not sorry to have read this book, but I didn't particularly enjoy it. It is very much of its time: everyone's moral character is linked directly to their physical appearance, and Doyle uses the occasional racial stereotype without a second thought. Prevailing writing styles have changed, so the prose feels long-winded and breathless. The rivalry between Holmes and the police detectives is tedious and annoying. I also find it hard to read novels from before the general absorption of techniques of emotional realism and interiority into all genres. The characters in A Study in Scarlet felt more like cartoon characters than fully-realized human beings. I have no strong opinion about the objective merits of this book in the context of its time other than to note that the sudden inserted western felt very weird. My understanding is that this is not considered one of the better Holmes stories, and Holmes gets some deeper characterization later on. Maybe I'll try another of Doyle's works someday, but for now my curiosity has been sated. Followed by The Sign of the Four. Rating: 4 out of 10

Review: A Study in Honor, by Claire O'Dell

Series:	Janet Watson Chronicles #1
Publisher:	Harper Voyager
Copyright:	July 2018
ISBN:	0-06-269932-6
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	295

A Study in Honor is a near-future science fiction novel by Claire O'Dell, a pen name for Beth Bernobich. You will see some assertions, including by the Lambda Literary Award judges, that it is a mystery novel. There is a mystery, but... well, more on that in a moment. Janet Watson was an Army surgeon in the Second US Civil War when New Confederacy troops overran the lines in Alton, Illinois. Watson lost her left arm to enemy fire. As this book opens, she is returning to Washington, D.C. with a medical discharge, PTSD, and a field replacement artificial arm scavenged from a dead soldier. It works, sort of, mostly, despite being mismatched to her arm and old in both technology and previous wear. It does not work well enough for her to resume her career as a surgeon. Watson's plan is to request a better artificial arm from the VA (the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which among other things is responsible for the medical care of wounded veterans). That plan meets a wall of unyielding and uninterested bureaucracy. She has a pension, but it's barely enough for cheap lodging. A lifeline comes in the form of a chance encounter with a former assistant in the Army, who has a difficult friend looking to split the cost of an apartment. The name of that friend is Sara Holmes. At this point, you know what to expect. This is clearly one of the many respinnings of Arthur Conan Doyle. This time, the setting is in the future and Watson and Holmes are both black women, but the other elements of the setup are familiar: the immediate deduction that Watson came from the front, the shared rooms (2809 Q Street this time, sacrificing homage for the accuracy of a real address), Holmes's tendency to play an instrument (this time the piano), and even the title of this book, which is an obvious echo of the title of the first Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet. Except that's not what you'll get. There are a lot of parallels and references here, but this is not a Holmes-style detective novel. First, it's only arguably a detective novel at all. There is a mystery, which starts with a patient Watson sees in her fallback job as a medical tech in the VA hospital and escalates to a physical attack, but that doesn't start until a third of the way into the book. It certainly is not solved through minute clues and leaps of deduction; instead, that part of the plot has the shape of a thriller rather than a classic mystery. There is a good argument that the thriller is the modern mystery novel, so I don't want to overstate my case, but I think someone who came to this book wanting a Doyle-style mystery would be disappointed. Second, the mystery is not the heart of this book. Watson is. She, like Doyle's Watson, is the first-person narrator, but she is far more present in the book. I have no idea how accurate O'Dell's portrayal of Watson's PTSD is, but it was certainly compelling and engrossing reading. Her fight for basic dignity and her rage at the surface respect and underlying disinterested hostility of the bureaucratic war machinery is what kept me turning the pages. The mystery plot is an outgrowth of that and felt more like a case study than the motivating thread of the plot. And third, Sara Holmes... well, I hesitate to say definitively that she's not Sherlock Holmes. There have been so many versions of Holmes over the years, even apart from the degree to which a black woman would necessarily not be like Doyle's character. But she did not remind me of Sherlock Holmes. She reminded me of a cross between James Bond and a high fae. This sounds like a criticism. It very much is not. I found this high elf spy character far more interesting than I have ever found Sherlock Holmes. But here again, if you came into this book hoping for a Holmes-style master detective, I fear you may be wrong-footed. The James Bond parts will be obvious when you get there and aren't the most interesting (and thankfully the misogyny is entirely absent). The part I found more fascinating is the way O'Dell sets Holmes apart by making her fae rather than insufferable. She projects effortless elegance, appears and disappears on a mysterious schedule of her own, thinks nothing of reading her roommate's diary, leaves meticulously arranged gifts, and even bargains with Watson for answers to precisely three questions. The reader does learn some mundane explanations for some of this behavior, but to be honest I found them somewhat of a letdown. Sara Holmes is at her best as a character when she tacks her own mysterious path through a rather grim world of exhausted war, penny-pinching bureaucracy, and despair, pursuing an unexplained agenda of her own while showing odd but unmistakable signs of friendship and care. This is not a romance, at least in this book. It is instead a slowly-developing friendship between two extremely different people, one that I thoroughly enjoyed. I do have a couple of caveats about this book. The first is that the future US in which it is set is almost pure Twitter doomcasting. Trump's election sparked a long slide into fascism, and when that was arrested by the election of a progressive candidate backed by a fragile coalition, Midwestern red states seceded to form the New Confederacy and start a second civil war that has dragged on for nearly eight years. It's a very specific mainstream liberal dystopian scenario that I've seen so many times it felt like a cliche even though I don't remember seeing it in a book before. This type of future projection of current fears is of course not new for science fiction; Cold War nuclear war novels are probably innumerable. But I had questions, such as how a sparsely-populated, largely non-industrial, and entirely landlocked set of breakaway states could maintain a war footing for eight years. Despite some hand-waving about covert support, those questions are not really answered here. The second problem is that the ending of this book kind of falls apart. The climax of the mystery investigation is unsatisfyingly straightforward, and the resulting revelation is a hoary cliche. Maybe I'm just complaining about the banality of evil, but if I'd been engrossed in this book for the thriller plot, I think I would have been annoyed. I wasn't, though; I was here for the characters, for Watson's PTSD and dogged determination, for Sara's strangeness, and particularly for the growing improbable friendship between two women with extremely different life experiences, emotions, and outlooks. That part was great, regardless of the ending. Do not pick this book up because you want a satisfying deductive mystery with bumbling police and a blizzard of apparently inconsequential clues. That is not at all what's happening here. But this was great on its own terms, and I will be reading the sequel shortly. Recommended, although if you are very online expect to do a bit of eye-rolling at the setting. Followed by The Hound of Justice, but the sequel is not required. This book reaches a satisfying conclusion of its own. Rating: 8 out of 10

Review: The Box, by Marc Levinson

Publisher:	Princeton University Press
Copyright:	2006, 2008
Printing:	2008
ISBN:	0-691-13640-8
Format:	Trade paperback
Pages:	278

The shipping container as we know it is only about 65 years old. Shipping things in containers is obviously much older; we've been doing that for longer than we've had ships. But the standardized metal box, set on a rail car or loaded with hundreds of its indistinguishable siblings into an enormous, specially-designed cargo ship, became economically significant only recently. Today it is one of the oft-overlooked foundations of global supply chains. The startlingly low cost of container shipping is part of why so much of what US consumers buy comes from Asia, and why most complex machinery is assembled in multiple countries from parts gathered from a dizzying variety of sources. Marc Levinson's The Box is a history of container shipping, from its (arguable) beginnings in the trailer bodies loaded on Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation's Ideal-X in 1956 to just-in-time international supply chains in the 2000s. It's a popular history that falls on the academic side, with a full index and 60 pages of citations and other notes. (Per my normal convention, those pages aren't included in the sidebar page count.) The Box is organized mostly chronologically, but Levinson takes extended detours into labor relations and container standardization at the appropriate points in the timeline. The book is very US-centric. Asian, European, and Australian shipping is discussed mostly in relation to trade with the US, and Africa is barely mentioned. I don't have the background to know whether this is historically correct for container shipping or is an artifact of Levinson's focus. Many single-item popular histories focus on something that involves obvious technological innovation (paint pigments) or deep cultural resonance (salt) or at least entertaining quirkiness (punctuation marks, resignation letters). Shipping containers are important but simple and boring. The least interesting chapter in The Box covers container standardization, in which a whole bunch of people had boring meetings, wrote some things done, discovered many of the things they wrote down were dumb, wrote more things down, met with different people to have more meetings, published a standard that partly reflected the fixations of that one guy who is always involved in standards discussions, and then saw that standard be promptly ignored by the major market players. You may be wondering if that describes the whole book. It doesn't, but not because of the shipping containers. The Box is interesting because the process of economic change is interesting, and container shipping is almost entirely about business processes rather than technology. Levinson starts the substance of the book with a description of shipping before standardized containers. This was the most effective, and probably the most informative, chapter. Beyond some vague ideas picked up via cultural osmosis, I had no idea how cargo shipping worked. Levinson gives the reader a memorable feel for the sheer amount of physical labor involved in loading and unloading a ship with mixed cargo (what's called "breakbulk" cargo to distinguish it from bulk cargo like coal or wheat that fills an entire hold). It's not just the effort of hauling barrels, bales, or boxes with cranes or raw muscle power, although that is significant. It's also the need to touch every piece of cargo to move it, inventory it, warehouse it, and then load it on a truck or train. The idea of container shipping is widely attributed, including by Levinson, to Malcom McLean, a trucking magnate who became obsessed with the idea of what we now call intermodal transport: using the same container for goods on ships, railroads, and trucks so that the contents don't have to be unpacked and repacked at each transfer point. Levinson uses his career as an anchor for the story, from his acquisition of Pan-American Steamship Corporation to pursue his original idea (backed by private equity and debt, in a very modern twist), through his years running Sea-Land as the first successful major container shipper, and culminating in his disastrous attempted return to shipping by acquiring United States Lines. I am dubious of Great Man narratives in history books, and I think Levinson may be overselling McLean's role. Container shipping was an obvious idea that the industry had been talking about for decades. Even Levinson admits that, despite a few gestures at giving McLean central credit. Everyone involved in shipping understood that cargo handling was the most expensive and time-consuming part, and that if one could minimize cargo handling at the docks by loading and unloading full containers that didn't have to be opened, shipping costs would be much lower (and profits higher). The idea wasn't the hard part. McLean was the first person to pull it off at scale, thanks to some audacious economic risks and a willingness to throw sharp elbows and play politics, but it seems likely that someone else would have played that role if McLean hadn't existed. Container shipping didn't happen earlier because achieving that cost savings required a huge expenditure of capital and a major disruption of a transportation industry that wasn't interested in being disrupted. The ships had to be remodeled and eventually replaced; manufacturing had to change; railroad and trucking in theory had to change (in practice, intermodal transport; McLean's obsession, didn't happen at scale until much later); pricing had to be entirely reworked; logistical tracking of goods had to be done much differently; and significant amounts of extremely expensive equipment to load and unload heavy containers had to be designed, built, and installed. McLean's efforts proved the cost savings was real and compelling, but it still took two decades before the shipping industry reconstructed itself around containers. That interim period is where this history becomes a labor story, and that's where Levinson's biases become somewhat distracting. In the United States, loading and unloading of cargo ships was done by unionized longshoremen through a bizarre but complex and long-standing system of contract hiring. The cost savings of container shipping comes almost completely from the loss of work for longshoremen. It's a classic replacement of labor with capital; the work done by gangs of twenty or more longshoreman is instead done by a single crane operator at much higher speed and efficiency. The longshoreman unions therefore opposed containerization and launched numerous strikes and other labor actions to delay use of containers, force continued hiring that containers made unnecessary, or win buyouts and payoffs for current longshoremen. Levinson is trying to write a neutral history and occasionally shows some sympathy for longshoremen, but they still get the Luddite treatment in this book: the doomed reactionaries holding back progress. Longshoremen had a vigorous and powerful union that won better working conditions structured in ways that look absurd to outsiders, such as requiring that ships hire twice as many men as necessary so that half of them could get paid while not working. The unions also had a reputation for corruption that Levinson stresses constantly, and theft of breakbulk cargo during loading and warehousing was common. One of the interesting selling points for containers was that lossage from theft during shipping apparently decreased dramatically. It's obvious that the surface demand of the longshoremen unions, that either containers not be used or that just as many manual laborers be hired for container shipping as for earlier breakbulk shipping, was impossible, and that the profession as it existed in the 1950s was doomed. But beneath those facts, and the smoke screen of Levinson's obvious distaste for their unions, is a real question about what society owes workers whose jobs are eliminated by major shifts in business practices. That question of fairness becomes more pointed when one realizes that this shift was massively subsidized by US federal and local governments. McLean's Sea-Land benefited from direct government funding and subsidized navy surplus ships, massive port construction in New Jersey with public funds, and a sweetheart logistics contract from the US military to supply troops fighting the Vietnam War that was so generous that the return voyage was free and every container Sea-Land picked up from Japanese ports was pure profit. The US shipping industry was heavily government-supported, particularly in the early days when the labor conflicts were starting. Levinson notes all of this, but never draws the contrast between the massive support for shipping corporations and the complete lack of formal support for longshoremen. There are hard ethical questions about what society owes displaced workers even in a pure capitalist industry transformation, and this was very far from pure capitalism. The US government bankrolled large parts of the growth of container shipping, but the only way that longshoremen could get part of that money was through strikes to force payouts from private shipping companies. There are interesting questions of social and ethical history here that would require careful disentangling of the tendency of any group to oppose disruptive change and fairness questions of who gets government support and who doesn't. They will have to wait for another book; Levinson never mentions them. There were some things about this book that annoyed me, but overall it's a solid work of popular history and deserves its fame. Levinson's account is easy to follow, specific without being tedious, and backed by voluminous notes. It's not the most compelling story on its own merits; you have to have some interest in logistics and economics to justify reading the entire saga. But it's the sort of history that gives one a sense of the fractal complexity of any area of human endeavor, and I usually find those worth reading. Recommended if you like this sort of thing. Rating: 7 out of 10

Earlier this year, after Github accidentally committed their private RSA SSH host key to a public repository, I wrote about how better support for SSH host certificates would allow this sort of situation to be handled in a user-transparent way without any negative impact on security. I was hoping that someone would read this and be inspired to fix the problem but sadly that didn't happen so I've actually written some code myself.

The core part of this is straightforward - if a server presents you with a certificate associated with a host key, then make the trust in that host be whoever signed the certificate rather than just trusting the host key. This means that if someone needs to replace the host key for any reason (such as, for example, them having published the private half), you can replace the host key with a new key and a new certificate, and as long as the new certificate is signed by the same key that the previous certificate was, you'll trust the new key and key rotation can be carried out without any user errors. Hurrah!

So obviously I wrote that bit and then thought about the failure modes and it turns out there's an obvious one - if an attacker obtained both the private key and the certificate, what stops them from continuing to use it? The certificate isn't a secret, so we basically have to assume that anyone who possesses the private key has access to it. We may have silently transitioned to a new host key on the legitimate servers, but a hostile actor able to MITM a user can keep on presenting the old key and the old certificate until it expires.

There's two ways to deal with this - either have short-lived certificates (ie, issue a new certificate every 24 hours or so even if you haven't changed the key, and specify that the certificate is invalid after those 24 hours), or have a mechanism to revoke the certificates. The former is viable if you have a very well-engineered certificate issuing operation, but still leaves a window for an attacker to make use of the certificate before it expires. The latter is something SSH has support for, but the spec doesn't define any mechanism for distributing revocation data.

So, I've implemented a new SSH protocol extension that allows a host to send a key revocation list to a client. The idea is that the client authenticates to the server, receives a key revocation list, and will no longer trust any certificates that are contained within that list. This seems simple enough, but a naive implementation opens the client to various DoS attacks. For instance, if you simply revoke any key contained within the received KRL, a hostile server could revoke any certificates that were otherwise trusted by the client. The easy way around this is for the client to ensure that any revoked keys are associated with the same CA that signed the host certificate - that way a compromised host can only revoke certificates associated with that CA, and can't interfere with anyone else.

Unfortunately that still means that a single compromised host can still trigger revocation of certificates inside that trust domain (ie, a compromised host a.test.com could push a KRL that invalidated the certificate for b.test.com), because there's no way in the KRL format to indicate that a given revocation is associated with a specific hostname. This means we need a mechanism to verify that the KRL update is legitimate, and the easiest way to handle that is to sign it. The KRL format specifies an in-band signature but this was deprecated earlier this year - instead KRLs are supposed to be signed with the sshsig format. But we control both the server and the client, which means it's easy enough to send a detached signature as part of the extension data.

Putting this all together: you ssh to a server you've never contacted before, and it presents you with a host certificate. Instead of the host key being added to known_hosts, the CA key associated with the certificate is added. From now on, if you ssh to that host and it presents a certificate signed by that CA, it'll be trusted. Optionally, the host can also send you a KRL and a signature. If the signature is generated by the CA key that you already trust, any certificates in that KRL associated with that CA key will be incorporated into local storage. The expected flow if a key is compromised is that the owner of the host generates a new keypair, obtains a new certificate for the new key, and adds the old certificate to a KRL that is signed with the CA key. The next time the user connects to that host, they receive the new key and new certificate, trust it because it's signed by the same CA key, and also receive a KRL signed with the same CA that revokes trust in the old certificate.

Obviously this breaks down if a user is MITMed with a compromised key and certificate immediately after the host is compromised - they'll see a legitimate certificate and won't receive any revocation list, so will trust the host. But this is the same failure mode that would occur in the absence of keys, where the attacker simply presents the compromised key to the client before trust in the new key has been created. This seems no worse than the status quo, but means that most users will seamlessly transition to a new key and revoke trust in the old key with no effort on their part.

The work in progress tree for this is here - at the point of writing I've merely implemented this and made sure it builds, not verified that it actually works or anything. Cleanup should happen over the next few days, and I'll propose this to upstream if it doesn't look like there's any showstopper design issues.

comments

I was looking over the list of live music I'd seen this year and realised that avante-garde composer William Basinski was actually last year and I had forgotten to write about it! In November 2022, Basinski headlined a night of performances which otherwise featured folk from the venue's "Arists in Residence" programme, with some affiliation to Newcastle's DIY music scene. Unfortunately we arrived too late to catch any of the other acts: partly because of the venue's sometimes doggiest insistence that people can only enter or leave the halls during intervals, and partly because the building works surrounding it had made the southern entrance effectively closed, so we had to walk to the north side of the building to get in¹. Basinski was performing work from Lamentations. Basinski himself presented very unexpectedly to how I imagined him: he's got the Texas drawl, mediated through a fair amount of time spent in New York; very camp, in a glittery top; he kicked off the gig complaining about how tired he was, before a mini rant about the state of the world, riffing on a title from the album: Please, This Shit Has Got To Stop. We were in Hall 1, the larger of the two, and it was sparsely attended; a few people walked out mid performance. My gig-buddy Rob (a useful barometer for me on how things have gone) remarked that it was one of the most unique and unusual gigs he'd been to. I recognised snatches of the tracks from the album, but I'm hard-placed to name or sequence them, and they flowed into each other. I don't know how much of what we were hearing was "live" or what, if anything, was being decided during the performance, but Basinski's set-up included what looked like archaic tape equipment, with exposed loops of tape running between spools that could be interfered with by other tools. The encore was a unique, unreleased mix of Melancholia (II), which (making no apologies) Basinski hit play on before retiring backstage. I didn't take any photos. From memory, I think the venue had specifically stated filming or photos were not allowed for this performance. People at prior shows in New York and London filmed some of their shows; which were substantially similar: I've included embeds of them above. Lots of Basinski's work is on Bandcamp; the three pieces I particularly enjoy are Lamentations, Lamentations by William Basinski On Time Out of Time, On Time Out of Time by William Basinski and his best-known work, The Disintegration Loops. The Disintegration Loops by William Basinski

I don't want to speak ill of the venue, though: The Sage, as it was, and the Glasshouse, as it is now known, has ended up being the venue I've attended most this year (2023), and it's such a civilised place: plenty of bars, great drinks selection (both alcoholic and not, hot and cold), loads of clean toilets, a free cloakroom, fantastic accoustics, polite staff; the list goes on.

The twentieth release of littler as a CRAN package landed a few minutes ago, following in the now seventeen year history (!!) as a package started by Jeff in 2006, and joined by me a few weeks later. littler is the first command-line interface for R as it predates Rscript. It allows for piping as well for shebang scripting via #!, uses command-line arguments more consistently and still starts faster. It also always loaded the methods package which Rscript only began to do in recent years. littler lives on Linux and Unix, has its difficulties on macOS due to yet-another-braindeadedness there (who ever thought case-insensitive filesystems as a default were a good idea?) and simply does not exist on Windows (yet the build system could be extended see RInside for an existence proof, and volunteers are welcome!). See the FAQ vignette on how to add it to your PATH. A few examples are highlighted at the Github repo:, as well as in the examples vignette. This release contains a fair number of small changes and improvements to some of the example scripts is run daily. The full change description follows.

Changes in littler version 0.3.19 (2023-12-17)

Changes in examples scripts

The help or usage text display for r2u.r, ttt.r, check.r has been improved, expanded or corrected, respectively

installDeps.r has a new argument for dependency selection

An initial 'single test file' runner tttf.r has been added

r2u.r has two new options for setting / varying the Debian build version of package that is built, and one for BioConductor builds, one for a 'dry run' build, and a new --compile option

installRSPM.r, installPPM.r, installP3M.r have been updates to reflect the name changes

installRub.r now understands 'package@universe' too

tt.r flips the default of the --effects switch

My CRANberries service provides a comparison to the previous release. Full details for the littler release are provided as usual at the ChangeLog page, and also on the package docs website. The code is available via the GitHub repo, from tarballs and now of course also from its CRAN page and via install.packages("littler"). Binary packages are available directly in Debian as well as (in a day or two) Ubuntu binaries at CRAN thanks to the tireless Michael Rutter. Comments and suggestions are welcome at the GitHub repo. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

A self-help guide for examining and debugging the AMD display driver within the Linux kernel/DRM subsystem. It s based on my experience as an external developer working on the driver, and are shared with the goal of helping others navigate the driver code. Acknowledgments: These tips were gathered thanks to the countless help received from AMD developers during the driver development process. The list below was obtained by examining open source code, reviewing public documentation, playing with tools, asking in public forums and also with the help of my former GSoC mentor, Rodrigo Siqueira.

Pre-Debugging Steps: Before diving into an issue, it s crucial to perform two essential steps: 1) Check the latest changes: Ensure you re working with the latest AMD driver modifications located in the amd-staging-drm-next branch maintained by Alex Deucher. You may also find bug fixes for newer kernel versions on branches that have the name pattern `drm-fixes-<date>`. 2) Examine the issue tracker: Confirm that your issue isn t already documented and addressed in the AMD display driver issue tracker. If you find a similar issue, you can team up with others and speed up the debugging process.

Understanding the issue: Do you really need to change this? Where should you start looking for changes? 3) Is the issue in the AMD kernel driver or in the userspace?: Identifying the source of the issue is essential regardless of the GPU vendor. Sometimes this can be challenging so here are some helpful tips:

Record the screen: Capture the screen using a recording app while experiencing the issue. If the bug appears in the capture, it s likely a userspace issue, not the kernel display driver.

Analyze the dmesg log: Look for error messages related to the display driver in the dmesg log. If the error message appears before the message `[drm] Display Core v...` , it s not likely a display driver issue. If this message doesn t appear in your log, the display driver wasn t fully loaded and you will see a notification that something went wrong here.

4) AMD Display Manager vs. AMD Display Core: The AMD display driver consists of two components:

Display Manager (DM): This component interacts directly with the Linux DRM infrastructure. Occasionally, issues can arise from misinterpretations of DRM properties or features. If the issue doesn t occur on other platforms with the same AMD hardware - for example, only happens on Linux but not on Windows - it s more likely related to the AMD DM code.

Display Core (DC): This is the platform-agnostic part responsible for setting and programming hardware features. Modifications to the DC usually require validation on other platforms, like Windows, to avoid regressions.

5) Identify the DC HW family: Each AMD GPU has variations in its hardware architecture. Features and helpers differ between families, so determining the relevant code for your specific hardware is crucial.

Find GPU product information in Linux/AMD GPU documentation

Check the dmesg log for the Display Core version (since this commit in Linux kernel 6.3v). For example:

`[drm] Display Core v3.2.241 initialized on DCN 2.1`

`[drm] Display Core v3.2.237 initialized on DCN 3.0.1`

Investigating the relevant driver code: Keep from letting unrelated driver code to affect your investigation. 6) Narrow the code inspection down to one DC HW family: the relevant code resides in a directory named after the DC number. For example, the DCN 3.0.1 driver code is located at drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn301. We all know that the AMD s shared code is huge and you can use these boundaries to rule out codes unrelated to your issue. 7) Newer families may inherit code from older ones: you can find dcn301 using code from dcn30, dcn20, dcn10 files. It s crucial to verify which hooks and helpers your driver utilizes to investigate the right portion. You can leverage ftrace for supplemental validation. To give an example, it was useful when I was updating DCN3 color mapping to correctly use their new post-blending color capabilities, such as:

[PATCH] drm/amd/display: set stream gamut remap matrix to MPC for DCN3+

Additionally, you can use two different HW families to compare behaviours. If you see the issue in one but not in the other, you can compare the code and understand what has changed and if the implementation from a previous family doesn t fit well the new HW resources or design. You can also count on the help of the community on the Linux AMD issue tracker to validate your code on other hardware and/or systems. This approach helped me debug a 2-year-old issue where the cursor gamma adjustment was incorrect in DCN3 hardware, but working correctly for DCN2 family. I solved the issue in two steps, thanks for community feedback and validation:

8) Check the hardware capability screening in the driver: You can currently find a list of display hardware capabilities in the drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn*/dcn*_resource.c file. More precisely in the dcn*_resource_construct() function. Using DCN301 for illustration, here is the list of its hardware caps:

	/*************************************************
	 *  Resource + asic cap harcoding                *
	 *************************************************/
	pool->base.underlay_pipe_index = NO_UNDERLAY_PIPE;
	pool->base.pipe_count = pool->base.res_cap->num_timing_generator;
	pool->base.mpcc_count = pool->base.res_cap->num_timing_generator;
	dc->caps.max_downscale_ratio = 600;
	dc->caps.i2c_speed_in_khz = 100;
	dc->caps.i2c_speed_in_khz_hdcp = 5; /*1.4 w/a enabled by default*/
	dc->caps.max_cursor_size = 256;
	dc->caps.min_horizontal_blanking_period = 80;
	dc->caps.dmdata_alloc_size = 2048;
	dc->caps.max_slave_planes = 2;
	dc->caps.max_slave_yuv_planes = 2;
	dc->caps.max_slave_rgb_planes = 2;
	dc->caps.is_apu = true;
	dc->caps.post_blend_color_processing = true;
	dc->caps.force_dp_tps4_for_cp2520 = true;
	dc->caps.extended_aux_timeout_support = true;
	dc->caps.dmcub_support = true;
	/* Color pipeline capabilities */
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dcn_arch = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.input_lut_shared = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.icsc = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_ram = 0; // must use gamma_corr
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.srgb = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.bt2020 = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.gamma2_2 = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.pq = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_caps.hlg = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.post_csc = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.gamma_corr = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.dgam_rom_for_yuv = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.hw_3d_lut = 1;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_ram = 1;
	// no OGAM ROM on DCN301
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.srgb = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.bt2020 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.gamma2_2 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.pq = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ogam_rom_caps.hlg = 0;
	dc->caps.color.dpp.ocsc = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.gamut_remap = 1;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.num_3dluts = pool->base.res_cap->num_mpc_3dlut; //2
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_ram = 1;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.srgb = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.bt2020 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.gamma2_2 = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.pq = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ogam_rom_caps.hlg = 0;
	dc->caps.color.mpc.ocsc = 1;
	dc->caps.dp_hdmi21_pcon_support = true;
	/* read VBIOS LTTPR caps */
	if (ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_caps)  
		enum bp_result bp_query_result;
		uint8_t is_vbios_lttpr_enable = 0;
		bp_query_result = ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_caps(ctx->dc_bios, &is_vbios_lttpr_enable);
		dc->caps.vbios_lttpr_enable = (bp_query_result == BP_RESULT_OK) && !!is_vbios_lttpr_enable;
	 
	if (ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_interop)  
		enum bp_result bp_query_result;
		uint8_t is_vbios_interop_enabled = 0;
		bp_query_result = ctx->dc_bios->funcs->get_lttpr_interop(ctx->dc_bios, &is_vbios_interop_enabled);
		dc->caps.vbios_lttpr_aware = (bp_query_result == BP_RESULT_OK) && !!is_vbios_interop_enabled;
	 

Keep in mind that the documentation of color capabilities are available at the Linux kernel Documentation.

Understanding the development history: What has brought us to the current state? 9) Pinpoint relevant commits: Use `git log` and `git blame` to identify commits targeting the code section you re interested in. 10) Track regressions: If you re examining the `amd-staging-drm-next` branch, check for regressions between DC release versions. These are defined by `DC_VER` in the `drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dc.h` file. Alternatively, find a commit with this format `drm/amd/display: 3.2.221` that determines a display release. It s useful for bisecting. This information helps you understand how outdated your branch is and identify potential regressions. You can consider each `DC_VER` takes around one week to be bumped. Finally, check testing log of each release in the report provided on the `amd-gfx` mailing list, such as this one `Tested-by: Daniel Wheeler`:

RE: [PATCH 00/13] DC Patches for Dec 11, 2023

Reducing the inspection area: Focus on what really matters. 11) Identify involved HW blocks: This helps isolate the issue. You can find more information about DCN HW blocks in the DCN Overview documentation. In summary:

Plane issues are closer to HUBP and DPP.

Blending/Stream issues are closer to MPC, OPP and OPTC. They are related to DRM CRTC subjects.

This information was useful when debugging a hardware rotation issue where the cursor plane got clipped off in the middle of the screen. Finally, the issue was addressed by two patches:

[PATCH 21/22] drm/amd/display: Fix rotated cursor offset calculation

[PATCH] drm/amd/display: fix cursor offset on rotation 180

12) Issues around bandwidth (glitches) and clocks: May be affected by calculations done in these HW blocks and HW specific values. The recalculation equations are found in the DML folder. DML stands for Display Mode Library. It s in charge of all required configuration parameters supported by the hardware for multiple scenarios. See more in the AMD DC Overview kernel docs. It s a math library that optimally configures hardware to find the best balance between power efficiency and performance in a given scenario. Finding some clk variables that affect device behavior may be a sign of it. It s hard for a external developer to debug this part, since it involves information from HW specs and firmware programming that we don t have access. The best option is to provide all relevant debugging information you have and ask AMD developers to check the values from your suspicions.

Do a trick: If you suspect the power setup is degrading performance, try setting the amount of power supplied to the GPU to the maximum and see if it affects the system behavior with this command: `sudo bash -c "echo high > /sys/class/drm/card0/device/power_dpm_force_performance_level"`

I learned it when debugging glitches with hardware cursor rotation on Steam Deck. My first attempt was changing the clock calculation. In the end, Rodrigo Siqueira proposed the right solution targeting bandwidth in two steps:

Patch series to create a new internal commit sequence

Enabling pipe split on DCN301

Checking implicit programming and hardware limitations: Bring implicit programming to the level of consciousness and recognize hardware limitations. 13) Implicit update types: Check if the selected type for atomic update may affect your issue. The update type depends on the mode settings, since programming some modes demands more time for hardware processing. More details in the source code:

/* Surface update type is used by dc_update_surfaces_and_stream
 * The update type is determined at the very beginning of the function based
 * on parameters passed in and decides how much programming (or updating) is
 * going to be done during the call.
 *
 * UPDATE_TYPE_FAST is used for really fast updates that do not require much
 * logical calculations or hardware register programming. This update MUST be
 * ISR safe on windows. Currently fast update will only be used to flip surface
 * address.
 *
 * UPDATE_TYPE_MED is used for slower updates which require significant hw
 * re-programming however do not affect bandwidth consumption or clock
 * requirements. At present, this is the level at which front end updates
 * that do not require us to run bw_calcs happen. These are in/out transfer func
 * updates, viewport offset changes, recout size changes and pixel
depth changes.
 * This update can be done at ISR, but we want to minimize how often
this happens.
 *
 * UPDATE_TYPE_FULL is slow. Really slow. This requires us to recalculate our
 * bandwidth and clocks, possibly rearrange some pipes and reprogram
anything front
 * end related. Any time viewport dimensions, recout dimensions,
scaling ratios or
 * gamma need to be adjusted or pipe needs to be turned on (or
disconnected) we do
 * a full update. This cannot be done at ISR level and should be a rare event.
 * Unless someone is stress testing mpo enter/exit, playing with
colour or adjusting
 * underscan we don't expect to see this call at all.
 */
enum surface_update_type  
UPDATE_TYPE_FAST, /* super fast, safe to execute in isr */
UPDATE_TYPE_MED,  /* ISR safe, most of programming needed, no bw/clk change*/
UPDATE_TYPE_FULL, /* may need to shuffle resources */
 ;

Using tools: Observe the current state, validate your findings, continue improvements. 14) Use AMD tools to check hardware state and driver programming: help on understanding your driver settings and checking the behavior when changing those settings.

DC Visual confirmation: Check multiple planes and pipe split policy.

DTN logs: Check display hardware state, including rotation, size, format, underflow, blocks in use, color block values, etc.

UMR: Check ASIC info, register values, KMS state - links and elements (framebuffers, planes, CRTCs, connectors). Source: UMR project documentation

15) Use generic DRM/KMS tools:

IGT test tools: Use generic KMS tests or develop your own to isolate the issue in the kernel space. Compare results across different GPU vendors to understand their implementations and find potential solutions. Here AMD also has specific IGT tests for its GPUs that is expect to work without failures on any AMD GPU. You can check results of HW-specific tests using different display hardware families or you can compare expected differences between the generic workflow and AMD workflow.

drm_info: This tool summarizes the current state of a display driver (capabilities, properties and formats) per element of the DRM/KMS workflow. Output can be helpful when reporting bugs.

Don t give up! Debugging issues in the AMD display driver can be challenging, but by following these tips and leveraging available resources, you can significantly improve your chances of success. Worth mentioning: This blog post builds upon my talk, I m not an AMD expert, but presented at the 2022 XDC. It shares guidelines that helped me debug AMD display issues as an external developer of the driver. Open Source Display Driver: The Linux kernel/AMD display driver is open source, allowing you to actively contribute by addressing issues listed in the official tracker. Tackling existing issues or resolving your own can be a rewarding learning experience and a valuable contribution to the community. Additionally, the tracker serves as a valuable resource for finding similar bugs, troubleshooting tips, and suggestions from AMD developers. Finally, it s a platform for seeking help when needed. Remember, contributing to the open source community through issue resolution and collaboration is mutually beneficial for everyone involved.

My earlier work on Streamlined NTRU Prime has been progressing along. The IETF document on sntrup761 in SSH has passed several process points. GnuPG s libgcrypt has added support for sntrup761. The libssh support for sntrup761 is working, but the merge request is stuck mostly due to lack of time to debug why the regression test suite sporadically errors out in non-sntrup761 related parts with the patch. The foundation for lattice-based post-quantum algorithms has some uncertainty around it, and I have felt that there is more to the post-quantum story than adding sntrup761 to implementations. Classic McEliece has been mentioned to me a couple of times, and I took some time to learn it and did a cut n paste job of the proposed ISO standard and published draft-josefsson-mceliece in the IETF to make the algorithm easily available to the IETF community. A high-quality implementation of Classic McEliece has been published as libmceliece and I ve been supporting the work of Jan Moj to package libmceliece for Debian, alas it has been stuck in the ftp-master NEW queue for manual review for over two months. The pre-dependencies librandombytes and libcpucycles are available in Debian already. All that text writing and packaging work set the scene to write some code. When I added support for sntrup761 in libssh, I became familiar with the OpenSSH code base, so it was natural to return to OpenSSH to experiment with a new SSH KEX for Classic McEliece. DJB suggested to pick mceliece6688128 and combine it with the existing X25519+sntrup761 or with plain X25519. While a three-algorithm hybrid between X25519, sntrup761 and mceliece6688128 would be a simple drop-in for those that don t want to lose the benefits offered by sntrup761, I decided to start the journey on a pure combination of X25519 with mceliece6688128. The key combiner in sntrup761x25519 is a simple SHA512 call and the only good I can say about that is that it is simple to describe and implement, and doesn t raise too many questions since it is already deployed. After procrastinating coding for months, once I sat down to work it only took a couple of hours until I had a successful Classic McEliece SSH connection. I suppose my brain had sorted everything in background before I started. To reproduce it, please try the following in a Debian testing environment (I use podman to get a clean environment).

# podman run -it --rm debian:testing-slim
apt update
apt dist-upgrade -y
apt install -y wget python3 librandombytes-dev libcpucycles-dev gcc make git autoconf libz-dev libssl-dev
cd ~
wget -q -O- https://lib.mceliece.org/libmceliece-20230612.tar.gz   tar xfz -
cd libmceliece-20230612/
./configure
make install
ldconfig
cd ..
git clone https://gitlab.com/jas/openssh-portable
cd openssh-portable
git checkout jas/mceliece
autoreconf
./configure # verify 'libmceliece support: yes'
make # CC="cc -DDEBUG_KEX=1 -DDEBUG_KEXDH=1 -DDEBUG_KEXECDH=1"

You should now have a working SSH client and server that supports Classic McEliece! Verify support by running ./ssh -Q kex and it should mention mceliece6688128x25519-sha512@openssh.com. To have it print plenty of debug outputs, you may remove the # character on the final line, but don t use such a build in production. You can test it as follows:

./ssh-keygen -A # writes to /usr/local/etc/ssh_host_...
# setup public-key based login by running the following:
./ssh-keygen -t rsa -f ~/.ssh/id_rsa -P ""
cat ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub > ~/.ssh/authorized_keys
adduser --system sshd
mkdir /var/empty
while true; do $PWD/sshd -p 2222 -f /dev/null; done &
./ssh -v -p 2222 localhost -oKexAlgorithms=mceliece6688128x25519-sha512@openssh.com date

On the client you should see output like this:

OpenSSH_9.5p1, OpenSSL 3.0.11 19 Sep 2023
...
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT sent
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT received
debug1: kex: algorithm: mceliece6688128x25519-sha512@openssh.com
debug1: kex: host key algorithm: ssh-ed25519
debug1: kex: server->client cipher: chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com MAC: <implicit> compression: none
debug1: kex: client->server cipher: chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com MAC: <implicit> compression: none
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEX_ECDH_REPLY
debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEX_ECDH_REPLY received
debug1: Server host key: ssh-ed25519 SHA256:YognhWY7+399J+/V8eAQWmM3UFDLT0dkmoj3pIJ0zXs
...
debug1: Host '[localhost]:2222' is known and matches the ED25519 host key.
debug1: Found key in /root/.ssh/known_hosts:1
debug1: rekey out after 134217728 blocks
debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent
debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS
debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received
debug1: rekey in after 134217728 blocks
...
debug1: Sending command: date
debug1: pledge: fork
debug1: permanently_set_uid: 0/0
Environment:
  USER=root
  LOGNAME=root
  HOME=/root
  PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin
  MAIL=/var/mail/root
  SHELL=/bin/bash
  SSH_CLIENT=::1 46894 2222
  SSH_CONNECTION=::1 46894 ::1 2222
debug1: client_input_channel_req: channel 0 rtype exit-status reply 0
debug1: client_input_channel_req: channel 0 rtype eow@openssh.com reply 0
Sat Dec  9 22:22:40 UTC 2023
debug1: channel 0: free: client-session, nchannels 1
Transferred: sent 1048044, received 3500 bytes, in 0.0 seconds
Bytes per second: sent 23388935.4, received 78108.6
debug1: Exit status 0

Notice the kex: algorithm: mceliece6688128x25519-sha512@openssh.com output. How about network bandwidth usage? Below is a comparison of a complete SSH client connection such as the one above that log in and print date and logs out. Plain X25519 is around 7kb, X25519 with sntrup761 is around 9kb, and mceliece6688128 with X25519 is around 1MB. Yes, Classic McEliece has large keys, but for many environments, 1MB of data for the session establishment will barely be noticeable.

./ssh -v -p 2222 localhost -oKexAlgorithms=curve25519-sha256 date 2>&1   grep ^Transferred
Transferred: sent 3028, received 3612 bytes, in 0.0 seconds
./ssh -v -p 2222 localhost -oKexAlgorithms=sntrup761x25519-sha512@openssh.com date 2>&1   grep ^Transferred
Transferred: sent 4212, received 4596 bytes, in 0.0 seconds
./ssh -v -p 2222 localhost -oKexAlgorithms=mceliece6688128x25519-sha512@openssh.com date 2>&1   grep ^Transferred
Transferred: sent 1048044, received 3764 bytes, in 0.0 seconds

So how about session establishment time?

date; i=0; while test $i -le 100; do ./ssh -v -p 2222 localhost -oKexAlgorithms=curve25519-sha256 date > /dev/null 2>&1; i= expr $i + 1 ; done; date
Sat Dec  9 22:39:19 UTC 2023
Sat Dec  9 22:39:25 UTC 2023
# 6 seconds
date; i=0; while test $i -le 100; do ./ssh -v -p 2222 localhost -oKexAlgorithms=sntrup761x25519-sha512@openssh.com date > /dev/null 2>&1; i= expr $i + 1 ; done; date
Sat Dec  9 22:39:29 UTC 2023
Sat Dec  9 22:39:38 UTC 2023
# 9 seconds
date; i=0; while test $i -le 100; do ./ssh -v -p 2222 localhost -oKexAlgorithms=mceliece6688128x25519-sha512@openssh.com date > /dev/null 2>&1; i= expr $i + 1 ; done; date
Sat Dec  9 22:39:55 UTC 2023
Sat Dec  9 22:40:07 UTC 2023
# 12 seconds

I never noticed adding sntrup761, so I m pretty sure I wouldn t notice this increase either. This is all running on my laptop that runs Trisquel so take it with a grain of salt but at least the magnitude is clear. Future work items include:

Use a better hybrid mode combiner than SHA512? See for example KEM Combiners.
Write IETF document describing the Classic McEliece SSH protocol
Submit my patch to the OpenSSH community for discussion and feedback, please review meanwhile!
Implement a mceliece6688128sntrup761x25519 multi-hybrid mode?
Write a shell script a la sntrup761.sh to import a stripped-down mceliece6688128 implementation to avoid having OpenSSH depend on libmceliece?
My kexmceliece6688128x25519.c is really just kexsntrup761x25519.c with the three calls to sntrup761 replaced with mceliece6688128. This should be parametrized to avoid cut n paste of code, if the OpenSSH community is interested.
Consider if the behaviour of librandombytes related to closing of file descriptors is relevant to OpenSSH.

Happy post-quantum SSH ing! Update: Changing the mceliece6688128_keypair call to mceliece6688128f_keypair (i.e., using the fully compatible f-variant) results in McEliece being just as fast as sntrup761 on my machine. Update 2023-12-26: An initial IETF document draft-josefsson-ssh-mceliece-00 published.

A new release of my mixed collection of things package dang package arrived at CRAN a little while ago. The dang package regroups a few functions of mine that had no other home as for example lsos() from a StackOverflow question from 2009 (!!), the overbought/oversold price band plotter from an older blog post, the market monitor blogged about as well as the checkCRANStatus() function tweeted about by Tim Taylor. And more so take a look. This release brings a number of updates, including a rather nice improvement to the market monitor making updates buttery smooth and not flickering (with big thanks to Paul Murrell who calmly pointed out once again that base R does of course have the functionality I was seeking) as well as three new functions (!!) and then a little maintenance on the -Wformat print format string issue that kept everybody busy this week. The NEWS entry follows.

Changes in version 0.0.16 (2023-12-02)

Added new function str.language() based on post by Bill Dunlap

Added new argument sleep in intradayMarketMonitor

Switched to dev.hold() and dev.flush() in intradayMarketMonitor with thanks to Paul Murrell

Updated continued integration setup, twice, and package badges

Added new function shadowedPackages

Added new function limitDataTableCores

Updated two error() calls to updated tidyCpp signature to not tickle -Wformat warnings under R-devel

Updated two URL to please link checks in R-devel

Switch two tests for variable of variable to is.* and inherits(), respectively

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is a comparison to [the previous release][previous releases]. For questions or comments use the the issue tracker at the GitHub repo. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

Last year I put together a Halloween playlist and tried, where possible, to link to the tracks on Bandcamp. At the time, Bandcamp did not offer a Playlist feature; they've since added one, but it's limited to mobile only (and I've found, not a lot of use there either). (I also provided a Spotify playlist. Not all of the tracks in the playlist were available on Spotify, or Bandcamp.) Since then I discovered an independent service bndcmpr which lets you build and share playlists from tracks hosted on Bandcamp. I'm not sure whether it will have longevity, but for now at least, I've ported my Halloween 2022 playlist over to bndcmpr. You can find it here: https://bndcmpr.co/cae6814a, or with any luck, embedded below (if you are reading this post on an aggregation site, or newsreader, it's less likely that this will appear):

I'm overdue cutting the next playlist, theme TBA. Stay tuned.

Did you hear the news? Firefox development is moving from Mercurial to Git. While the decision is far from being mine, and I was barely involved in the small incremental changes that ultimately led to this decision, I feel I have to take at least some responsibility. And if you are one of those who would rather use Mercurial than Git, you may direct all your ire at me. But let's take a step back and review the past 25 years leading to this decision. You'll forgive me for skipping some details and any possible inaccuracies. This is already a long post, while I could have been more thorough, even I think that would have been too much. This is also not an official Mozilla position, only my personal perception and recollection as someone who was involved at times, but mostly an observer from a distance. From CVS to DVCS From its release in 1998, the Mozilla source code was kept in a CVS repository. If you're too young to know what CVS is, let's just say it's an old school version control system, with its set of problems. Back then, it was mostly ubiquitous in the Open Source world, as far as I remember. In the early 2000s, the Subversion version control system gained some traction, solving some of the problems that came with CVS. Incidentally, Subversion was created by Jim Blandy, who now works at Mozilla on completely unrelated matters. In the same period, the Linux kernel development moved from CVS to Bitkeeper, which was more suitable to the distributed nature of the Linux community. BitKeeper had its own problem, though: it was the opposite of Open Source, but for most pragmatic people, it wasn't a real concern because free access was provided. Until it became a problem: someone at OSDL developed an alternative client to BitKeeper, and licenses of BitKeeper were rescinded for OSDL members, including Linus Torvalds (they were even prohibited from purchasing one). Following this fiasco, in April 2005, two weeks from each other, both Git and Mercurial were born. The former was created by Linus Torvalds himself, while the latter was developed by Olivia Mackall, who was a Linux kernel developer back then. And because they both came out of the same community for the same needs, and the same shared experience with BitKeeper, they both were similar distributed version control systems. Interestingly enough, several other DVCSes existed:

SVK, a DVCS built on top of Subversion, allowing users to create local (offline) branches of remote Subversion repositories. It was also known for its powerful merging capabilities. I picked it at some point for my Debian work, mainly because I needed to interact with Subversion repositories.
Arch (tla), later known as GNU arch. From what I remember, it was awful to use. You think Git is complex or confusing? Arch was way worse. It was forked as "Bazaar", but the fork was abandoned in favor of "Bazaar-NG", now known as "Bazaar" or "bzr", a much more user-friendly DVCS. The first release of Bzr actually precedes Git's by two weeks. I guess it was too new to be considered by Linus Torvalds for the Linux kernel needs.
Monotone, which I don't know much about, but it was mentioned by Linus Torvalds two days before the initial Git commit of Git. As far as I know, it was too slow for the Linux kernel's needs. I'll note in passing that Monotone is the creation of Graydon Hoare, who also created Rust.
Darcs, with its patch-based model, rather than the common snapshot-based model, allowed more flexible management of changes. This approach came, however, at the expense of performance.

In this landscape, the major difference Git was making at the time was that it was blazing fast. Almost incredibly so, at least on Linux systems. That was less true on other platforms (especially Windows). It was a game-changer for handling large codebases in a smooth manner. Anyways, two years later, in 2007, Mozilla decided to move its source code not to Bzr, not to Git, not to Subversion (which, yes, was a contender), but to Mercurial. The decision "process" was laid down in two rather colorful blog posts. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I don't recall that it was a particularly controversial choice. All of those DVCSes were still young, and there was no definite "winner" yet (GitHub hadn't even been founded). It made the most sense for Mozilla back then, mainly because the Git experience on Windows still wasn't there, and that mattered a lot for Mozilla, with its diverse platform support. As a contributor, I didn't think much of it, although to be fair, at the time, I was mostly consuming the source tarballs. Personal preferences Digging through my archives, I've unearthed a forgotten chapter: I did end up setting up both a Mercurial and a Git mirror of the Firefox source repository on alioth.debian.org. Alioth.debian.org was a FusionForge-based collaboration system for Debian developers, similar to SourceForge. It was the ancestor of salsa.debian.org. I used those mirrors for the Debian packaging of Firefox (cough cough Iceweasel). The Git mirror was created with hg-fast-export, and the Mercurial mirror was only a necessary step in the process. By that time, I had converted my Subversion repositories to Git, and switched off SVK. Incidentally, I started contributing to Git around that time as well. I apparently did this not too long after Mozilla switched to Mercurial. As a Linux user, I think I just wanted the speed that Mercurial was not providing. Not that Mercurial was that slow, but the difference between a couple seconds and a couple hundred milliseconds was a significant enough difference in user experience for me to prefer Git (and Firefox was not the only thing I was using version control for) Other people had also similarly created their own mirror, or with other tools. But none of them were "compatible": their commit hashes were different. Hg-git, used by the latter, was putting extra information in commit messages that would make the conversion differ, and hg-fast-export would just not be consistent with itself! My mirror is long gone, and those have not been updated in more than a decade. I did end up using Mercurial, when I got commit access to the Firefox source repository in April 2010. I still kept using Git for my Debian activities, but I now was also using Mercurial to push to the Mozilla servers. I joined Mozilla as a contractor a few months after that, and kept using Mercurial for a while, but as a, by then, long time Git user, it never really clicked for me. It turns out, the sentiment was shared by several at Mozilla. Git incursion In the early 2010s, GitHub was becoming ubiquitous, and the Git mindshare was getting large. Multiple projects at Mozilla were already entirely hosted on GitHub. As for the Firefox source code base, Mozilla back then was kind of a Wild West, and engineers being engineers, multiple people had been using Git, with their own inconvenient workflows involving a local Mercurial clone. The most popular set of scripts was moz-git-tools, to incorporate changes in a local Git repository into the local Mercurial copy, to then send to Mozilla servers. In terms of the number of people doing that, though, I don't think it was a lot of people, probably a few handfuls. On my end, I was still keeping up with Mercurial. I think at that time several engineers had their own unofficial Git mirrors on GitHub, and later on Ehsan Akhgari provided another mirror, with a twist: it also contained the full CVS history, which the canonical Mercurial repository didn't have. This was particularly interesting for engineers who needed to do some code archeology and couldn't get past the 2007 cutoff of the Mercurial repository. I think that mirror ultimately became the official-looking, but really unofficial, mozilla-central repository on GitHub. On a side note, a Mercurial repository containing the CVS history was also later set up, but that didn't lead to something officially supported on the Mercurial side. Some time around 2011~2012, I started to more seriously consider using Git for work myself, but wasn't satisfied with the workflows others had set up for themselves. I really didn't like the idea of wasting extra disk space keeping a Mercurial clone around while using a Git mirror. I wrote a Python script that would use Mercurial as a library to access a remote repository and produce a git-fast-import stream. That would allow the creation of a git repository without a local Mercurial clone. It worked quite well, but it was not able to incrementally update. Other, more complete tools existed already, some of which I mentioned above. But as time was passing and the size and depth of the Mercurial repository was growing, these tools were showing their limits and were too slow for my taste, especially for the initial clone. Boot to Git In the same time frame, Mozilla ventured in the Mobile OS sphere with Boot to Gecko, later known as Firefox OS. What does that have to do with version control? The needs of third party collaborators in the mobile space led to the creation of what is now the gecko-dev repository on GitHub. As I remember it, it was challenging to create, but once it was there, Git users could just clone it and have a working, up-to-date local copy of the Firefox source code and its history... which they could already have, but this was the first officially supported way of doing so. Coincidentally, Ehsan's unofficial mirror was having trouble (to the point of GitHub closing the repository) and was ultimately shut down in December 2013. You'll often find comments on the interwebs about how GitHub has become unreliable since the Microsoft acquisition. I can't really comment on that, but if you think GitHub is unreliable now, rest assured that it was worse in its beginning. And its sustainability as a platform also wasn't a given, being a rather new player. So on top of having this official mirror on GitHub, Mozilla also ventured in setting up its own Git server for greater control and reliability. But the canonical repository was still the Mercurial one, and while Git users now had a supported mirror to pull from, they still had to somehow interact with Mercurial repositories, most notably for the Try server. Git slowly creeping in Firefox build tooling Still in the same time frame, tooling around building Firefox was improving drastically. For obvious reasons, when version control integration was needed in the tooling, Mercurial support was always a no-brainer. The first explicit acknowledgement of a Git repository for the Firefox source code, other than the addition of the .gitignore file, was bug 774109. It added a script to install the prerequisites to build Firefox on macOS (still called OSX back then), and that would print a message inviting people to obtain a copy of the source code with either Mercurial or Git. That was a precursor to current bootstrap.py, from September 2012. Following that, as far as I can tell, the first real incursion of Git in the Firefox source tree tooling happened in bug 965120. A few days earlier, bug 952379 had added a mach clang-format command that would apply clang-format-diff to the output from hg diff. Obviously, running hg diff on a Git working tree didn't work, and bug 965120 was filed, and support for Git was added there. That was in January 2014. A year later, when the initial implementation of mach artifact was added (which ultimately led to artifact builds), Git users were an immediate thought. But while they were considered, it was not to support them, but to avoid actively breaking their workflows. Git support for mach artifact was eventually added 14 months later, in March 2016. From gecko-dev to git-cinnabar Let's step back a little here, back to the end of 2014. My user experience with Mercurial had reached a level of dissatisfaction that was enough for me to decide to take that script from a couple years prior and make it work for incremental updates. That meant finding a way to store enough information locally to be able to reconstruct whatever the incremental updates would be relying on (guess why other tools hid a local Mercurial clone under hood). I got something working rather quickly, and after talking to a few people about this side project at the Mozilla Portland All Hands and seeing their excitement, I published a git-remote-hg initial prototype on the last day of the All Hands. Within weeks, the prototype gained the ability to directly push to Mercurial repositories, and a couple months later, was renamed to git-cinnabar. At that point, as a Git user, instead of cloning the gecko-dev repository from GitHub and switching to a local Mercurial repository whenever you needed to push to a Mercurial repository (i.e. the aforementioned Try server, or, at the time, for reviews), you could just clone and push directly from/to Mercurial, all within Git. And it was fast too. You could get a full clone of mozilla-central in less than half an hour, when at the time, other similar tools would take more than 10 hours (needless to say, it's even worse now). Another couple months later (we're now at the end of April 2015), git-cinnabar became able to start off a local clone of the gecko-dev repository, rather than clone from scratch, which could be time consuming. But because git-cinnabar and the tool that was updating gecko-dev weren't producing the same commits, this setup was cumbersome and not really recommended. For instance, if you pushed something to mozilla-central with git-cinnabar from a gecko-dev clone, it would come back with a different commit hash in gecko-dev, and you'd have to deal with the divergence. Eventually, in April 2020, the scripts updating gecko-dev were switched to git-cinnabar, making the use of gecko-dev alongside git-cinnabar a more viable option. Ironically(?), the switch occurred to ease collaboration with KaiOS (you know, the mobile OS born from the ashes of Firefox OS). Well, okay, in all honesty, when the need of syncing in both directions between Git and Mercurial (we only had ever synced from Mercurial to Git) came up, I nudged Mozilla in the direction of git-cinnabar, which, in my (biased but still honest) opinion, was the more reliable option for two-way synchronization (we did have regular conversion problems with hg-git, nothing of the sort has happened since the switch). One Firefox repository to rule them all For reasons I don't know, Mozilla decided to use separate Mercurial repositories as "branches". With the switch to the rapid release process in 2011, that meant one repository for nightly (mozilla-central), one for aurora, one for beta, and one for release. And with the addition of Extended Support Releases in 2012, we now add a new ESR repository every year. Boot to Gecko also had its own branches, and so did Fennec (Firefox for Mobile, before Android). There are a lot of them. And then there are also integration branches, where developer's work lands before being merged in mozilla-central (or backed out if it breaks things), always leaving mozilla-central in a (hopefully) good state. Only one of them remains in use today, though. I can only suppose that the way Mercurial branches work was not deemed practical. It is worth noting, though, that Mercurial branches are used in some cases, to branch off a dot-release when the next major release process has already started, so it's not a matter of not knowing the feature exists or some such. In 2016, Gregory Szorc set up a new repository that would contain them all (or at least most of them), which eventually became what is now the mozilla-unified repository. This would e.g. simplify switching between branches when necessary. 7 years later, for some reason, the other "branches" still exist, but most developers are expected to be using mozilla-unified. Mozilla's CI also switched to using mozilla-unified as base repository. Honestly, I'm not sure why the separate repositories are still the main entry point for pushes, rather than going directly to mozilla-unified, but it probably comes down to switching being work, and not being a top priority. Also, it probably doesn't help that working with multiple heads in Mercurial, even (especially?) with bookmarks, can be a source of confusion. To give an example, if you aren't careful, and do a plain clone of the mozilla-unified repository, you may not end up on the latest mozilla-central changeset, but rather, e.g. one from beta, or some other branch, depending which one was last updated. Hosting is simple, right? Put your repository on a server, install hgweb or gitweb, and that's it? Maybe that works for... Mercurial itself, but that repository "only" has slightly over 50k changesets and less than 4k files. Mozilla-central has more than an order of magnitude more changesets (close to 700k) and two orders of magnitude more files (more than 700k if you count the deleted or moved files, 350k if you count the currently existing ones). And remember, there are a lot of "duplicates" of this repository. And I didn't even mention user repositories and project branches. Sure, it's a self-inflicted pain, and you'd think it could probably(?) be mitigated with shared repositories. But consider the simple case of two repositories: mozilla-central and autoland. You make autoland use mozilla-central as a shared repository. Now, you push something new to autoland, it's stored in the autoland datastore. Eventually, you merge to mozilla-central. Congratulations, it's now in both datastores, and you'd need to clean-up autoland if you wanted to avoid the duplication. Now, you'd think mozilla-unified would solve these issues, and it would... to some extent. Because that wouldn't cover user repositories and project branches briefly mentioned above, which in GitHub parlance would be considered as Forks. So you'd want a mega global datastore shared by all repositories, and repositories would need to only expose what they really contain. Does Mercurial support that? I don't think so (okay, I'll give you that: even if it doesn't, it could, but that's extra work). And since we're talking about a transition to Git, does Git support that? You may have read about how you can link to a commit from a fork and make-pretend that it comes from the main repository on GitHub? At least, it shows a warning, now. That's essentially the architectural reason why. So the actual answer is that Git doesn't support it out of the box, but GitHub has some backend magic to handle it somehow (and hopefully, other things like Gitea, Girocco, Gitlab, etc. have something similar). Now, to come back to the size of the repository. A repository is not a static file. It's a server with which you negotiate what you have against what it has that you want. Then the server bundles what you asked for based on what you said you have. Or in the opposite direction, you negotiate what you have that it doesn't, you send it, and the server incorporates what you sent it. Fortunately the latter is less frequent and requires authentication. But the former is more frequent and CPU intensive. Especially when pulling a large number of changesets, which, incidentally, cloning is. "But there is a solution for clones" you might say, which is true. That's clonebundles, which offload the CPU intensive part of cloning to a single job scheduled regularly. Guess who implemented it? Mozilla. But that only covers the cloning part. We actually had laid the ground to support offloading large incremental updates and split clones, but that never materialized. Even with all that, that still leaves you with a server that can display file contents, diffs, blames, provide zip archives of a revision, and more, all of which are CPU intensive in their own way. And these endpoints are regularly abused, and cause extra load to your servers, yes plural, because of course a single server won't handle the load for the number of users of your big repositories. And because your endpoints are abused, you have to close some of them. And I'm not mentioning the Try repository with its tens of thousands of heads, which brings its own sets of problems (and it would have even more heads if we didn't fake-merge them once in a while). Of course, all the above applies to Git (and it only gained support for something akin to clonebundles last year). So, when the Firefox OS project was stopped, there wasn't much motivation to continue supporting our own Git server, Mercurial still being the official point of entry, and git.mozilla.org was shut down in 2016. The growing difficulty of maintaining the status quo Slowly, but steadily in more recent years, as new tooling was added that needed some input from the source code manager, support for Git was more and more consistently added. But at the same time, as people left for other endeavors and weren't necessarily replaced, or more recently with layoffs, resources allocated to such tooling have been spread thin. Meanwhile, the repository growth didn't take a break, and the Try repository was becoming an increasing pain, with push times quite often exceeding 10 minutes. The ongoing work to move Try pushes to Lando will hide the problem under the rug, but the underlying problem will still exist (although the last version of Mercurial seems to have improved things). On the flip side, more and more people have been relying on Git for Firefox development, to my own surprise, as I didn't really push for that to happen. It just happened organically, by ways of git-cinnabar existing, providing a compelling experience to those who prefer Git, and, I guess, word of mouth. I was genuinely surprised when I recently heard the use of Git among moz-phab users had surpassed a third. I did, however, occasionally orient people who struggled with Mercurial and said they were more familiar with Git, towards git-cinnabar. I suspect there's a somewhat large number of people who never realized Git was a viable option. But that, on its own, can come with its own challenges: if you use git-cinnabar without being backed by gecko-dev, you'll have a hard time sharing your branches on GitHub, because you can't push to a fork of gecko-dev without pushing your entire local repository, as they have different commit histories. And switching to gecko-dev when you weren't already using it requires some extra work to rebase all your local branches from the old commit history to the new one. Clone times with git-cinnabar have also started to go a little out of hand in the past few years, but this was mitigated in a similar manner as with the Mercurial cloning problem: with static files that are refreshed regularly. Ironically, that made cloning with git-cinnabar faster than cloning with Mercurial. But generating those static files is increasingly time-consuming. As of writing, generating those for mozilla-unified takes close to 7 hours. I was predicting clone times over 10 hours "in 5 years" in a post from 4 years ago, I wasn't too far off. With exponential growth, it could still happen, although to be fair, CPUs have improved since. I will explore the performance aspect in a subsequent blog post, alongside the upcoming release of git-cinnabar 0.7.0-b1. I don't even want to check how long it now takes with hg-git or git-remote-hg (they were already taking more than a day when git-cinnabar was taking a couple hours). I suppose it's about time that I clarify that git-cinnabar has always been a side-project. It hasn't been part of my duties at Mozilla, and the extent to which Mozilla supports git-cinnabar is in the form of taskcluster workers on the community instance for both git-cinnabar CI and generating those clone bundles. Consequently, that makes the above git-cinnabar specific issues a Me problem, rather than a Mozilla problem. Taking the leap I can't talk for the people who made the proposal to move to Git, nor for the people who put a green light on it. But I can at least give my perspective. Developers have regularly asked why Mozilla was still using Mercurial, but I think it was the first time that a formal proposal was laid out. And it came from the Engineering Workflow team, responsible for issue tracking, code reviews, source control, build and more. It's easy to say "Mozilla should have chosen Git in the first place", but back in 2007, GitHub wasn't there, Bitbucket wasn't there, and all the available options were rather new (especially compared to the then 21 years-old CVS). I think Mozilla made the right choice, all things considered. Had they waited a couple years, the story might have been different. You might say that Mozilla stayed with Mercurial for so long because of the sunk cost fallacy. I don't think that's true either. But after the biggest Mercurial repository hosting service turned off Mercurial support, and the main contributor to Mercurial going their own way, it's hard to ignore that the landscape has evolved. And the problems that we regularly encounter with the Mercurial servers are not going to get any better as the repository continues to grow. As far as I know, all the Mercurial repositories bigger than Mozilla's are... not using Mercurial. Google has its own closed-source server, and Facebook has another of its own, and it's not really public either. With resources spread thin, I don't expect Mozilla to be able to continue supporting a Mercurial server indefinitely (although I guess Octobus could be contracted to give a hand, but is that sustainable?). Mozilla, being a champion of Open Source, also doesn't live in a silo. At some point, you have to meet your contributors where they are. And the Open Source world is now majoritarily using Git. I'm sure the vast majority of new hires at Mozilla in the past, say, 5 years, know Git and have had to learn Mercurial (although they arguably didn't need to). Even within Mozilla, with thousands(!) of repositories on GitHub, Firefox is now actually the exception rather than the norm. I should even actually say Desktop Firefox, because even Mobile Firefox lives on GitHub (although Fenix is moving back in together with Desktop Firefox, and the timing is such that that will probably happen before Firefox moves to Git). Heck, even Microsoft moved to Git! With a significant developer base already using Git thanks to git-cinnabar, and all the constraints and problems I mentioned previously, it actually seems natural that a transition (finally) happens. However, had git-cinnabar or something similarly viable not existed, I don't think Mozilla would be in a position to take this decision. On one hand, it probably wouldn't be in the current situation of having to support both Git and Mercurial in the tooling around Firefox, nor the resource constraints related to that. But on the other hand, it would be farther from supporting Git and being able to make the switch in order to address all the other problems. But... GitHub? I hope I made a compelling case that hosting is not as simple as it can seem, at the scale of the Firefox repository. It's also not Mozilla's main focus. Mozilla has enough on its plate with the migration of existing infrastructure that does rely on Mercurial to understandably not want to figure out the hosting part, especially with limited resources, and with the mixed experience hosting both Mercurial and git has been so far. After all, GitHub couldn't even display things like the contributors' graph on gecko-dev until recently, and hosting is literally their job! They still drop the ball on large blames (thankfully we have searchfox for those). Where does that leave us? Gitlab? For those criticizing GitHub for being proprietary, that's probably not open enough. Cloud Source Repositories? "But GitHub is Microsoft" is a complaint I've read a lot after the announcement. Do you think Google hosting would have appealed to these people? Bitbucket? I'm kind of surprised it wasn't in the list of providers that were considered, but I'm also kind of glad it wasn't (and I'll leave it at that). I think the only relatively big hosting provider that could have made the people criticizing the choice of GitHub happy is Codeberg, but I hadn't even heard of it before it was mentioned in response to Mozilla's announcement. But really, with literal thousands of Mozilla repositories already on GitHub, with literal tens of millions repositories on the platform overall, the pragmatic in me can't deny that it's an attractive option (and I can't stress enough that I wasn't remotely close to the room where the discussion about what choice to make happened). "But it's a slippery slope". I can see that being a real concern. LLVM also moved its repository to GitHub (from a (I think) self-hosted Subversion server), and ended up moving off Bugzilla and Phabricator to GitHub issues and PRs four years later. As an occasional contributor to LLVM, I hate this move. I hate the GitHub review UI with a passion. At least, right now, GitHub PRs are not a viable option for Mozilla, for their lack of support for security related PRs, and the more general shortcomings in the review UI. That doesn't mean things won't change in the future, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. The move to Git has just been announced, and the migration has not even begun yet. Just because Mozilla is moving the Firefox repository to GitHub doesn't mean it's locked in forever or that all the eggs are going to be thrown into one basket. If bridges need to be crossed in the future, we'll see then. So, what's next? The official announcement said we're not expecting the migration to really begin until six months from now. I'll swim against the current here, and say this: the earlier you can switch to git, the earlier you'll find out what works and what doesn't work for you, whether you already know Git or not. While there is not one unique workflow, here's what I would recommend anyone who wants to take the leap off Mercurial right now:

Make sure git is installed. Chances are you already have it.

Install git-cinnabar where mach bootstrap would install it.

$ mkdir -p ~/.mozbuild/git-cinnabar
$ cd ~/.mozbuild/git-cinnabar
$ curl -sOL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/glandium/git-cinnabar/master/download.py
$ python3 download.py && rm download.py

Add git-cinnabar to your PATH. Make sure to also set that wherever you keep your PATH up-to-date (.bashrc or wherever else).
```
$ PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.mozbuild/git-cinnabar
```
Enter your mozilla-central or mozilla-unified Mercurial working copy, we'll do an in-place conversion, so that you don't need to move your mozconfigs, objdirs and what not.

Initialize the git repository from GitHub.

$ git init
$ git remote add origin https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev
$ git remote update origin

Switch to a Mercurial remote.

$ git remote set-url origin hg::https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-unified
$ git config --local remote.origin.cinnabar-refs bookmarks
$ git remote update origin --prune

Fetch your local Mercurial heads.
```
$ git -c cinnabar.refs=heads fetch hg::$PWD refs/heads/default/*:refs/heads/hg/*
```
This will create a bunch of hg/<sha1> local branches, not all relevant to you (some come from old branches on mozilla-central). Note that if you're using Mercurial MQ, this will not pull your queues, as they don't exist as heads in the Mercurial repo. You'd need to apply your queues one by one and run the command above for each of them.
Or, if you have bookmarks for your local Mercurial work, you can use this instead:
```
$ git -c cinnabar.refs=bookmarks fetch hg::$PWD refs/heads/*:refs/heads/hg/*
```
This will create hg/<bookmark_name> branches.
Now, make git know what commit your working tree is on.
```
$ git reset $(git cinnabar hg2git $(hg log -r . -T ' node '))
```
This will take a little moment because Git is going to scan all the files in the tree for the first time. On the other hand, it won't touch their content or timestamps, so if you had a build around, it will still be valid, and mach build won't rebuild anything it doesn't have to.

As there is no one-size-fits-all workflow, I won't tell you how to organize yourself from there. I'll just say this: if you know the Mercurial sha1s of your previous local work, you can create branches for them with:

$ git branch <branch_name> $(git cinnabar hg2git <hg_sha1>)

At this point, you should have everything available on the Git side, and you can remove the .hg directory. Or move it into some empty directory somewhere else, just in case. But don't leave it here, it will only confuse the tooling. Artifact builds WILL be confused, though, and you'll have to ./mach configure before being able to do anything. You may also hit bug 1865299 if your working tree is older than this post. If you have any problem or question, you can ping me on #git-cinnabar or #git on Matrix. I'll put the instructions above somewhere on wiki.mozilla.org, and we can collaboratively iterate on them. Now, what the announcement didn't say is that the Git repository WILL NOT be gecko-dev, doesn't exist yet, and WON'T BE COMPATIBLE (trust me, it'll be for the better). Why did I make you do all the above, you ask? Because that won't be a problem. I'll have you covered, I promise. The upcoming release of git-cinnabar 0.7.0-b1 will have a way to smoothly switch between gecko-dev and the future repository (incidentally, that will also allow to switch from a pure git-cinnabar clone to a gecko-dev one, for the git-cinnabar users who have kept reading this far). What about git-cinnabar? With Mercurial going the way of the dodo at Mozilla, my own need for git-cinnabar will vanish. Legitimately, this begs the question whether it will still be maintained. I can't answer for sure. I don't have a crystal ball. However, the needs of the transition itself will motivate me to finish some long-standing things (like finalizing the support for pushing merges, which is currently behind an experimental flag) or implement some missing features (support for creating Mercurial branches). Git-cinnabar started as a Python script, it grew a sidekick implemented in C, which then incorporated some Rust, which then cannibalized the Python script and took its place. It is now close to 90% Rust, and 10% C (if you don't count the code from Git that is statically linked to it), and has sort of become my Rust playground (it's also, I must admit, a mess, because of its history, but it's getting better). So the day to day use with Mercurial is not my sole motivation to keep developing it. If it were, it would stay stagnant, because all the features I need are there, and the speed is not all that bad, although I know it could be better. Arguably, though, git-cinnabar has been relatively stagnant feature-wise, because all the features I need are there. So, no, I don't expect git-cinnabar to die along Mercurial use at Mozilla, but I can't really promise anything either. Final words That was a long post. But there was a lot of ground to cover. And I still skipped over a bunch of things. I hope I didn't bore you to death. If I did and you're still reading... what's wrong with you? ;) So this is the end of Mercurial at Mozilla. So long, and thanks for all the fish. But this is also the beginning of a transition that is not easy, and that will not be without hiccups, I'm sure. So fasten your seatbelts (plural), and welcome the change. To circle back to the clickbait title, did I really kill Mercurial at Mozilla? Of course not. But it's like I stumbled upon a few sparks and tossed a can of gasoline on them. I didn't start the fire, but I sure made it into a proper bonfire... and now it has turned into a wildfire. And who knows? 15 years from now, someone else might be looking back at how Mozilla picked Git at the wrong time, and that, had we waited a little longer, we would have picked some yet to come new horse. But hey, that's the tech cycle for you.

Review: The Exiled Fleet, by J.S. Dewes

Series:	Divide #2
Publisher:	Tor
Copyright:	2021
ISBN:	1-250-23635-5
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	421

The Exiled Fleet is far-future interstellar military SF. It is a direct sequel to The Last Watch. You don't want to start here. The Last Watch took a while to get going, but it ended with some fascinating world-building and a suitably enormous threat. I was hoping Dewes would carry that momentum into the second book. I was disappointed; instead, The Exiled Fleet starts with interpersonal angst and wallowing and takes an annoyingly long time to build up narrative tension again. The world-building of the first book looked outward, towards aliens and strange technology and stranger physics, while setting up contributing problems on the home front. The Exiled Fleet pivots inwards, both in terms of world-building and in terms of character introspection. Neither of those worked as well for me. There's nothing wrong with the revelations here about human power structures and the politics that the Sentinels have been missing at the edge of space, but it also felt like a classic human autocracy without much new to offer in either wee thinky bits or plot structure. We knew most of shape from the start of the first book: Cavalon's grandfather is evil, human society is run as an oligarchy, and everything is trending authoritarian. Once the action started, I was entertained but not gripped the way that I was when reading The Last Watch. Dewes makes a brief attempt to tap into the morally complex question of the military serving as a brake on tyranny, but then does very little with it. Instead, everything is excessively personal, turning the political into less of a confrontation of ideologies or ethics and more a story of family abuse and rebellion. There is even more psychodrama in this book than there was in the previous book. I found it exhausting. Rake is barely functional after the events of the previous book and pushing herself way too hard at the start of this one. Cavalon regresses considerably and starts falling apart again. There's a lot of moping, a lot of angst, and a lot of characters berating themselves and occasionally each other. It was annoying enough that I took a couple of weeks break from this book in the middle before I could work up the enthusiasm to finish it. Some of this is personal preference. My favorite type of story is competence porn: details about something esoteric and satisfyingly complex, a challenge to overcome, and a main character who deploys their expertise to overcome that challenge in a way that shows they generally have their shit together. I can enjoy other types of stories, but that's the story I'll keep reaching for. Other people prefer stories about fuck-ups and walking disasters, people who barely pull together enough to survive the plot (or sometimes not even that). There's nothing wrong with that, and neither approach is right or wrong, but my tolerance for that story is usually lot lower. I think Dewes is heading towards the type of story in which dysfunctional characters compensate for each other's flaws in order to keep each other going, and intellectually I can see the appeal. But it's not my thing, and when the main characters are falling apart and the supporting characters project considerably more competence, I wish the story had different protagonists. It didn't help that this is in theory military SF, but Dewes does not seem to want to deploy any of the support framework of the military to address any of her characters' problems. This book is a lot of Rake and Cavalon dragging each other through emotional turmoil while coming to terms with Cavalon's family. I liked their dynamic in the first book when it felt more like Rake showing leadership skills. Here, it turns into something closer to found family in ways that seemed wildly inconsistent with the military structure, and while I'm normally not one to defend hierarchical discipline, I felt like Rake threw out the only structure she had to handle the thousands of other people under her command and started winging it based on personal friendship. If this were a small commercial crew, sure, fine, but Rake has a personal command responsibility that she obsessively angsts about and yet keeps abandoning. I realize this is probably another way to complain that I wanted competence porn and got barely-functional fuck-ups. The best parts of this series are the strange technologies and the aliens, and they are again the best part of this book. There was a truly great moment involving Viator technology that I found utterly delightful, and there was an intriguing setup for future books that caught my attention. Unfortunately, there were also a lot of deus ex machina solutions to problems, both from convenient undisclosed character backstories and from alien tech. I felt like the characters had to work satisfyingly hard for their victories in the first book; here, I felt like Dewes kept having issues with her characters being at point A and her plot at point B and pulling some rabbit out of the hat to make the plot work. This unfortunately undermined the cool factor of the world-building by making its plot device aspects a bit too obvious. This series also turns out not to be a duology (I have no idea why I thought it would be). By the end of The Exiled Fleet, none of the major political or world-building problems have been resolved. At best, the characters are in a more stable space to start being proactive. I'm cautiously optimistic that could mean the series would turn into the type of story I was hoping for, but I'm worried that Dewes is interested in writing a different type of character story than I am interested in reading. Hopefully there will be some clues in the synopsis of the (as yet unannounced) third book. I thought The Last Watch had some first-novel problems but was worth reading. I am much more reluctant to recommend The Exiled Fleet, or the series as a whole given that it is incomplete. Unless you like dysfunctional characters, proceed with caution. Rating: 5 out of 10

At the end of the last part of this, we got a Home Assistant OS installation that contains in itself a Firefly III instance and that contains all the current financial information. Now I will try to connect the two. While it could be nice to create a fully-featured integration for Firefly III to Home Assistant to communicate all interesting values and events, I have an interest on programming a more advanced data point calculation for my budget needs, so a less generic, but more flexible approch is a better one for me. So I was quite interested when among the addons in the Home Assistant Addon Store I saw AppDaemon - a way to simply integrate arbitrary Python processing with Home Assistant. Let's see if that can do what I want. For start, after reading the tutorial , I wanted to create a simple script that would use Firefly III REST API to read the current balance of my main account and then send that to Home Assistant as a sensor value, which then can be displayed on a dashboard. As a quick try I modified the provided hello_world.py that is included in the default AppDaemon installation:

import requests
from datetime import datetime
import appdaemon.plugins.hass.hassapi as hass
app_token = "<FIREFLY_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN>"
firefly_url = "<FIREFLY_URL>"
class HelloWorld(hass.Hass):
    def initialize(self):
        self.run_every(self.set_asset, "now", 60 * 60)
    def set_asset(self, kwargs):
        ent = self.get_entity("sensor.firefly3_asset_sparkasse_main")
        if not ent.exists():
            ent.add(
                state=0.0,
                attributes= 
                    "native_value": 0.0,
                    "native_unit_of_measurement": "EUR",
                    "state_class": "measurement",
                    "device_class": "monetary",
                    "current_balance_date": datetime.now(),
                 )
        r = requests.get(
            firefly_url + "/api/v1/accounts?type=asset",
            headers= 
                "Authorization": "Bearer " + app_token,
                "Accept": "application/vnd.api+json",
                "Content-Type": "application/json",
         )
        data = r.json()
        for account in data["data"]:
            if not "attributes" in account or "name" not in account["attributes"]:
                continue
            if account["attributes"]["name"] != "Sparkasse giro":
                continue
            self.log("Account :" + str(account["attributes"]))
            ent.set_state(
                state=account["attributes"]["current_balance"],
                attributes= 
                    "native_value": account["attributes"]["current_balance"],
                    "current_balance_date": datetime.fromisoformat(account["attributes"]["current_balance_date"]),
                 )
            self.log("Entity updated")

It uses a URL and personal access token to access Firefly III API, gets the asset accounts information, then extracts info about current balance and balance date of my main account and then creates and/or updates a "sensor" value into Home Assistant. This sensor is with metadata marked as a monetary value and as a measurement. This makes Home Assistant track this value in the database as a graphable changing value. I modified the file using the File Editor addon to edit the /config/appdaemon/apps/hello.py file. Each time the file is saved it is reloaded and logs can be seen in the AppDaemon Logs section - main_log for logging messages or error_log if there is a crash. Useful to know that requests library is included, but it hard to see in the docks what else is included or if there is an easy way to install extra Python packages. This is already a very nice basis for custom value insertion into Home Assistant - whatever you can with a Python script extract or calculate, you can also inject into Home Assistant. With even this simple approach you can monitor balances, budgets, piggy-banks, bill payment status and even sum of transactions in particular catories in a particular time window. Especially interesting data can be found in the insight section of the Firefly III API. The script above uses a trigger like self.run_every(self.set_asset, "now", 60 * 60) to simply run once per hour. The data in Firefly will not be updated too often anyway, at least not until we figure out how to make bank connection run automatically without user interaction and not screw up already existing transactions along the way. In theory a webhook API of the Firefly III could be used to trigger the data update instantly when any transaction is created or updated. Possibly even using Home Assistant webhook integration. Hmmm. Maybe. Who am I kiddind? I am going to make that work, for sure! :D But first - how about figuring out the future? So what I want to do? In short, I want to predict what will be the balance on my main account just before the next months salary comes in. To do this I would:

take the current balance of the main account
if this months salary is not paid out yet, then add that into the balance
deduct all still unpaid bills that are due between now and the target date
if the credit card account has not yet been reset to the main account, deduct current amount on the cards
if credit card account has been reset, but not from main account deducted yet, deduct the reset amount

To do that I need to use the Firefly API to read: current account info, status of all bills including next due date and amount, transfer transactions between credit cards and main account and something that would store the expected salary date and amount. Ideally I'd use a recurring transaction or a income bill for this, but Firefly is not really cooperating with that. The easiest would be just to hardcode that in the script itself. And this is what I have come up with so far. To make the development process easier, I separated put the params for the API key and salary info and app params for the month to predict for, and predict both this and next months balances at the same time. I edited the script locally with Neovim and also ran it locally with a few mocks, uploading to Home Assistant via the SSH addon when the local executions looked good. So what's next? Well, need to somewhat automate the sync with the bank (if at all possible). And for sure take a regular database and config backup :D

Review: Going Infinite, by Michael Lewis

Publisher:	W.W. Norton & Company
Copyright:	2023
ISBN:	1-324-07434-5
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	255

My first reaction when I heard that Michael Lewis had been embedded with Sam Bankman-Fried working on a book when Bankman-Fried's cryptocurrency exchange FTX collapsed into bankruptcy after losing billions of dollars of customer deposits was "holy shit, why would you talk to Michael Lewis about your dodgy cryptocurrency company?" Followed immediately by "I have to read this book." This is that book. I wasn't sure how Lewis would approach this topic. His normal (although not exclusive) area of interest is financial systems and crises, and there is lots of room for multiple books about cryptocurrency fiascoes using someone like Bankman-Fried as a pivot. But Going Infinite is not like The Big Short or Lewis's other financial industry books. It's a nearly straight biography of Sam Bankman-Fried, with just enough context for the reader to follow his life. To understand what you're getting in Going Infinite, I think it's important to understand what sort of book Lewis likes to write. Lewis is not exactly a reporter, although he does explain complicated things for a mass audience. He's primarily a storyteller who collects people he finds fascinating. This book was therefore never going to be like, say, Carreyrou's Bad Blood or Isaac's Super Pumped. Lewis's interest is not in a forensic account of how FTX or Alameda Research were structured. His interest is in what makes Sam Bankman-Fried tick, what's going on inside his head. That's not a question Lewis directly answers, though. Instead, he shows you Bankman-Fried as Lewis saw him and was able to reconstruct from interviews and sources and lets you draw your own conclusions. Boy did I ever draw a lot of conclusions, most of which were highly unflattering. However, one conclusion I didn't draw, and had been dubious about even before reading this book, was that Sam Bankman-Fried was some sort of criminal mastermind who intentionally plotted to steal customer money. Lewis clearly doesn't believe this is the case, and with the caveat that my study of the evidence outside of this book has been spotty and intermittent, I think Lewis has the better of the argument. I am utterly fascinated by this, and I'm afraid this review is going to turn into a long summary of my take on the argument, so here's the capsule review before you get bored and wander off: This is a highly entertaining book written by an excellent storyteller. I am also inclined to believe most of it is true, but given that I'm not on the jury, I'm not that invested in whether Lewis is too credulous towards the explanations of the people involved. What I do know is that it's a fantastic yarn with characters who are too wild to put in fiction, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are a few things that everyone involved appears to agree on, and therefore I think we can take as settled. One is that Bankman-Fried, and most of the rest of FTX and Alameda Research, never clearly distinguished between customer money and all of the other money. It's not obvious that their home-grown accounting software (written entirely by one person! who never spoke to other people! in code that no one else could understand!) was even capable of clearly delineating between their piles of money. Another is that FTX and Alameda Research were thoroughly intermingled. There was no official reporting structure and possibly not even a coherent list of employees. The environment was so chaotic that lots of people, including Bankman-Fried, could have stolen millions of dollars without anyone noticing. But it was also so chaotic that they could, and did, literally misplace millions of dollars by accident, or because Bankman-Fried had problems with object permanence. Something that was previously less obvious from news coverage but that comes through very clearly in this book is that Bankman-Fried seriously struggled with normal interpersonal and societal interactions. We know from multiple sources that he was diagnosed with ADHD and depression (Lewis describes it specifically as anhedonia, the inability to feel pleasure). The ADHD in Lewis's account is quite severe and does not sound controlled, despite medication; for example, Bankman-Fried routinely played timed video games while he was having important meetings, forgot things the moment he stopped dealing with them, was constantly on his phone or seeking out some other distraction, and often stimmed (by bouncing his leg) to a degree that other people found it distracting. Perhaps more tellingly, Bankman-Fried repeatedly describes himself in diary entries and correspondence to other people (particularly Caroline Ellison, his employee and on-and-off secret girlfriend) as being devoid of empathy and unable to access his own emotions, which Lewis supports with stories from former co-workers. I'm very hesitant to diagnose someone via a book, but, at least in Lewis's account, Bankman-Fried nearly walks down the symptom list of antisocial personality disorder in his own description of himself to other people. (The one exception is around physical violence; there is nothing in this book or in any of the other reporting that I've seen to indicate that Bankman-Fried was violent or physically abusive.) One of the recurrent themes of this book is that Bankman-Fried never saw the point in following rules that didn't make sense to him or worrying about things he thought weren't important, and therefore simply didn't. By about a third of the way into this book, before FTX is even properly started, very little about its eventual downfall will seem that surprising. There was no way that Sam Bankman-Fried was going to be able to run a successful business over time. He was extremely good at probabilistic trading and spotting exploitable market inefficiencies, and extremely bad at essentially every other aspect of living in a society with other people, other than a hit-or-miss ability to charm that worked much better with large audiences than one-on-one. The real question was why anyone would ever entrust this man with millions of dollars or decide to work for him for longer than two weeks. The answer to those questions changes over the course of this story. Later on, it was timing. Sam Bankman-Fried took the techniques of high frequency trading he learned at Jane Street Capital and applied them to exploiting cryptocurrency markets at precisely the right time in the cryptocurrency bubble. There was far more money than sense, the most ruthless financial players were still too leery to get involved, and a rising tide was lifting all boats, even the ones that were piles of driftwood. When cryptocurrency inevitably collapsed, so did his businesses. In retrospect, that seems inevitable. The early answer, though, was effective altruism. A full discussion of effective altruism is beyond the scope of this review, although Lewis offers a decent introduction in the book. The short version is that a sensible and defensible desire to use stronger standards of evidence in evaluating charitable giving turned into a bizarre navel-gazing exercise in making up statistical risks to hypothetical future people and treating those made-up numbers as if they should be the bedrock of one's personal ethics. One of the people most responsible for this turn is an Oxford philosopher named Will MacAskill. Sam Bankman-Fried was already obsessed with utilitarianism, in part due to his parents' philosophical beliefs, and it was a presentation by Will MacAskill that converted him to the effective altruism variant of extreme utilitarianism. In Lewis's presentation, this was like joining a cult. The impression I came away with feels like something out of a science fiction novel: Bankman-Fried knew there was some serious gap in his thought processes where most people had empathy, was deeply troubled by this, and latched on to effective altruism as the ethical framework to plug into that hole. So much of effective altruism sounds like a con game that it's easy to think the participants are lying, but Lewis clearly believes Bankman-Fried is a true believer. He appeared to be sincerely trying to make money in order to use it to solve existential threats to society, he does not appear to be motivated by money apart from that goal, and he was following through (in bizarre and mostly ineffective ways). I find this particularly believable because effective altruism as a belief system seems designed to fit Bankman-Fried's personality and justify the things he wanted to do anyway. Effective altruism says that empathy is meaningless, emotion is meaningless, and ethical decisions should be made solely on the basis of expected value: how much return (usually in safety) does society get for your investment. Effective altruism says that all the things that Sam Bankman-Fried was bad at were useless and unimportant, so he could stop feeling bad about his apparent lack of normal human morality. The only thing that mattered was the thing that he was exceptionally good at: probabilistic reasoning under uncertainty. And, critically to the foundation of his business career, effective altruism gave him access to investors and a recruiting pool of employees, things he was entirely unsuited to acquiring the normal way. There's a ton more of this book that I haven't touched on, but this review is already quite long, so I'll leave you with one more point. I don't know how true Lewis's portrayal is in all the details. He took the approach of getting very close to most of the major players in this drama and largely believing what they said happened, supplemented by startling access to sources like Bankman-Fried's personal diary and Caroline Ellis's personal diary. (He also seems to have gotten extensive information from the personal psychiatrist of most of the people involved; I'm not sure if there's some reasonable explanation for this, but based solely on the material in this book, it seems to be a shocking breach of medical ethics.) But Lewis is a storyteller more than he's a reporter, and his bias is for telling a great story. It's entirely possible that the events related here are not entirely true, or are skewed in favor of making a better story. It's certainly true that they're not the complete story. But, that said, I think a book like this is a useful counterweight to the human tendency to believe in moral villains. This is, frustratingly, a counterweight extended almost exclusively to higher-class white people like Bankman-Fried. This is infuriating, but that doesn't make it wrong. It means we should extend that analysis to more people. Once FTX collapsed, a lot of people became very invested in the idea that Bankman-Fried was a straightforward embezzler. Either he intended from the start to steal everyone's money or, more likely, he started losing money, panicked, and stole customer money to cover the hole. Lots of people in history have done exactly that, and lots of people involved in cryptocurrency have tenuous attachments to ethics, so this is a believable story. But people are complicated, and there's also truth in the maxim that every villain is the hero of their own story. Lewis is after a less boring story than "the crook stole everyone's money," and that leads to some bias. But sometimes the less boring story is also true. Here's the thing: even if Sam Bankman-Fried never intended to take any money, he clearly did intend to mix customer money with Alameda Research funds. In Lewis's account, he never truly believed in them as separate things. He didn't care about following accounting or reporting rules; he thought they were boring nonsense that got in his way. There is obvious criminal intent here in any reading of the story, so I don't think Lewis's more complex story would let him escape prosecution. He refused to follow the rules, and as a result a lot of people lost a lot of money. I think it's a useful exercise to leave mental space for the possibility that he had far less obvious reasons for those actions than that he was a simple thief, while still enforcing the laws that he quite obviously violated. This book was great. If you like Lewis's style, this was some of the best entertainment I've read in a while. Highly recommended; if you are at all interested in this saga, I think this is a must-read. Rating: 9 out of 10

Software Freedom Law Center, India, also known as sflc.in, organized an event to celebrate the Software Freedom Day on 30th September 2023. Me, Sahil, Contrapunctus and Suresh joined. The venue was at the SFLC India office in Delhi. The sflc.in office was on the second floor of what looked like someone s apartment:). I also met Chirag, Orendra, Surbhi and others. My plan was to have a stall on LibreOffice and Prav app to raise awareness about these projects. I didn t have QR code for downloading prav app printed already, so I asked the people at sflc.in if they can get it printed for me. They were very kind and helped me in getting a color printout for me. So, I got a stall in their main room. Surbhi was having an Inkscape stall next to mine and gave me company. People came and asked about the prav project and then I realized I was still too tired to explain the idea behind the prav project and about LibreOffice (after a long Kerala trip). We got a few prav app installs during the event, which is cool.

Sahil had Debian stall and contrapunctus had OpenStreetMap stall. After about an hour, Revolution OS was screened for all of us to watch, along with popcorn. The documentary gave an overview of history of Free Software Movement. The office had a kitchen where fresh chai was being made and served to us. The organizers ordered a lot of good snacks for us.

I came out of the movie hall to take more tea and snacks from the front desk. I saw a beautiful painting was hanging at the wall opposite to the front desk and Tejaswini (from sflc.in) revealed that she had made it. The tea was really good as it was freshly made in the kitchen. After the movie, we played a game of pictionary. We were divided into two teams. The game goes as follows: A person from a team is selected and given a term related to freedom respecting software written on a piece of paper, but concealed from other participants. Then that person draws something on the board (no logo, no alphabets) without speaking. If the team from which the person belongs correctly guesses the term, the team gets one step ahead on the leader board. The team who reaches the finish line wins. I recall some fun pictionaries. Like, the one in the picture below seems far from the word Wireguard and even then someone from the team guessed that word. Our team won in the end \o/.

Then, we posed for a group picture. At the end, SFLC.in had a delicious cake in store for us. They had some merchandise - handbags, T-shirts, etc. which we could take if we donate some amount to SFLC.in. I bought a handbag with Ban Plastic, not Internet written on it in exchange for donation. I hope that gives people around me a powerful message :) .

All in all, a nice event by sflc.in :)

So now that I have something that looks very much like a budgeting setup going, I am going to .. delete it! Why? Well, at the end of the last part of this, the Firefly III instance was running on a tiny Debian server in a Docker container right next to another Docker container that is running the main user of this server - a Home Assistant instance that has been managing my home for several years already. So why change that? See, there is one bit of knowledge that is very crucial to your Home Assistant experience, which is not really emphasised enough in the Home Assistant documentation. In fact back when I was getting into the Home Assistant both the main documentation and basically all the guides around were just coming off the hype of Docker disrupting everything and that is a big reason why everyone suggested to install and use Home Assistant as a Docker container on top of any kind of stable OS. In fact I used to run it for years on my TerraMaster NAS, just so that I don't have a separate home server running 24/7 at home and just have everything inside the very compact NAS case. So here is the thing you NEED to know - Home Assistant Container is DEMO version of Home Assistant! If you want to have a full Home Assistant experience and use the knowledge of the huge community around the HA space, you have to use the Home Assistant OS. Ideally on dedicated hardware. Ideally on HA Green box, but any tiny PC would also work great. Raspberry Pi 4+ is common, but quite weak as the network size grows and especially the SD card for storage gets old very fast. Get a real small x86 PC with at least 4Gb RAM and a NVME SSD (eMMC is fine too). You want to have an Ethernet port and a few free USB ports. I would also suggest immediately getting HA SkyConnect adapter that can do Zigbee networking and will do Matter soon (tm). I am making do with a SonOff Zigbee gateway, but it is quite hacky to get working and your whole Zigbee communication breaks down if the WiFi goes down - suboptimal. So I took a backup of the Home Assistant instance using it's build-in tools. I took an export of my fully configured Firefly III instance and proceeded to wipe the drive of the NUC. That was not a smart idea. :D On the Home Assitant side I was really frustrated by the documentation that was really focused on users that are (likely) using Windows and are using an SD card in something like Raspberry Pi to get Home Assistant OS running. It recommended downloading Etcher to write the image to the boot medium. That is a really weird piece of software that managed to actually crash consistently when I was trying to run it from Debian Live or Ubuntu Live on my NUC. It took me way too long to give up and try something much simpler - dd. xzcat haos_generic-x86-64-11.0.img.xz dd of=/dev/mmcblk0 bs=1M That just worked, prefectly and really fast. If you want to use a GUI in a live environment, then just using the gnome-disk-utility ("Disks" in Gnome menu) and using the "Restore Disk Image ..." on a partition would work just as well. It even supports decompressing the XZ images directly while writing. But that image is small, will it not have a ton of unused disk space behind the fixed install partition? Yes, it will ... until first boot. The HA OS takes over the empty space after its install partition on the first boot-up and just grows its main partition to take up all the remaining space. Smart. After first boot is completed, the first boot wizard can be accessed via your web browser and one of the prominent buttons there is restoring from backup. So you just give it the backup file and wait. Sadly the restore does not actually give any kind of progress, so your only way to figure out when it is done is opening the same web adress in another browser tab and refresh periodically - after restoring from backup it just boots into the same config at it had before - all the settings, all the devices, all the history is preserved. Even authentification tokens are preserved so if yu had a Home Assitant Mobile installed on your phone (both for remote access and to send location info and phone state, like charging, to HA to trigger automations) then it will just suddenly start working again without further actions needed from your side. That is an almost perfect backup/restore experience. The first thing you get for using the OS version of HA is easy automatic update that also automatically takes a backup before upgrade, so if anything breaks you can roll back with one click. There is also a command-line tool that allows to upgrade, but also downgrade ha-core and other modules. I had to use it today as HA version 23.10.4 actually broke support for the Sonoff bridge that I am using to control Zigbee devices, which are like 90% of all smart devices in my home. Really helpful stuff, but not a must have. What is a must have and that you can (really) only get with Home Assistant Operating System are Addons. Some addons are just normal servers you can run alongside HA on the same HA OS server, like MariaDB or Plex or a file server. That is not the most important bit, but even there the software comes pre-configured to use in a home server configuration and has a very simple config UI to pre-configure key settings, like users, passwords and database accesses for MariaDB - you can litereally in a few clicks and few strings make serveral users each with its own access to its own database. Couple more clicks and the DB is running and will be kept restarted in case of failures. But the real gems in the Home Assistant Addon Store are modules that extend Home Assitant core functionality in way that would be really hard or near impossible to configure in Home Assitant Container manually, especially because no documentation has ever existed for such manual config - everyone just tells you to install the addon from HA Addon store or from HACS. Or you can read the addon metadata in various repos and figure out what containers it actually runs with what settings and configs and what hooks it puts into the HA Core to make them cooperate. And then do it all over again when a new version breaks everything 6 months later when you have already forgotten everything. In the Addons that show up immediately after installation are addons to install the new Matter server, a MariaDB and MQTT server (that other addons can use for data storage and message exchange), Z-Wave support and ESPHome integration and very handy File manager that includes editors to edit Home Assitant configs directly in brower and SSH/Terminal addon that boht allows SSH connection and also a web based terminal that gives access to the OS itself and also to a comand line interface, for example, to do package downgrades if needed or see detailed logs. And also there is where you can get the features that are the focus this year for HA developers - voice enablers. However that is only a beginning. Like in Debian you can add additional repositories to expand your list of available addons. Unlike Debian most of the amazing software that is available for Home Assistant is outside the main, official addon store. For now I have added the most popular addon repository - HACS (Home Assistant Community Store) and repository maintained by Alexbelgium. The first includes things like NodeRED (a workflow based automation programming UI), Tailscale/Wirescale for VPN servers, motionEye for CCTV control, Plex for home streaming. HACS also includes a lot of HA UI enhacement modules, like themes, custom UI control panels like Mushroom or mini-graph-card and integrations that provide more advanced functions, but also require more knowledge to use, like Local Tuya - that is harder to set up, but allows fully local control of (normally) cloud-based devices. And it has AppDaemon - basically a Python based automation framework where you put in Python scrips that get run in a special environment where they get fed events from Home Assistant and can trigger back events that can control everything HA can and also do anything Python can do. This I will need to explore later. And the repository by Alex includes the thing that is actually the focus of this blog post (I know :D) - Firefly III addon and Firefly Importer addon that you can then add to your Home Assistant OS with a few clicks. It also has all kinds of addons for NAS management, photo/video server, book servers and Portainer that lets us setup and run any Docker container inside the HA OS structure. HA OS will detect this and warn you about unsupported processes running on your HA OS instance (nice security feature!), but you can just dismiss that. This will be very helpful very soon. This whole environment of OS and containers and apps really made me think - what was missing in Debian that made the talented developers behind all of that to spend the immense time and effor to setup a completely new OS and app infrastructure and develop a completel paraller developer community for Home Assistant apps, interfaces and configurations. Is there anything that can still be done to make HA community and the general open source and Debian community closer together? HA devs are not doing anything wrong: they are using the best open source can provide, they bring it to people whould could not install and use it otherwise, they are contributing fixes and improvements as well. But there must be some way to do this better, together. So I installed MariaDB, create a user and database for Firefly. I installed Firefly III and configured it to use the MariaDB with the web config UI. When I went into the Firefly III web UI I was confronted with the normal wizard to setup a new instance. And no reference to any backup restore. Hmm, ok. Maybe that goes via the Importer? So I make an access token again, configured the Importer to use that, configured the Nordlinger bank connection settings. Then I tried to import the export that I downloaded from Firefly III before. The importer did not auto-recognose the format. Turns out it is just a list of transactions ... It can only be barely useful if you first manually create all the asset accounts with the same names as before and even then you'll again have to deal with resolving the problem of transfers showing up twice. And all of your categories (that have not been used yet) are gone, your automation rules and bills are gone, your budgets and piggy banks are gone. Boooo. It will be easier for me to recreate my account data from bank exports again than to resolve data in that transaction export. Turns out that Firefly III documenation explicitly recommends making a mysqldump of your own and not rely on anything in the app itself for backup purposes. Kind of sad this was not mentioned in the export page that sure looked a lot like a backup :D After doing all that work all over again I needed to make something new not to feel like I wasted days of work for no real gain. So I started solving a problem I had for a while already - how do I add cash transations to the system when I am out of the house with just my phone in the hand? So far my workaround has been just sending myself messages in WhatsApp with the amount and description of any cash expenses. Two solutions are possible: app and bot. There are actually multiple Android-based phone apps that work with Firefly III API to do full financial management from the phone. However, after trying it out, that is not what I will be using most of the time. First of all this requires your Firefly III instance to be accessible from the Internet. Either via direct API access using some port forwarding and secured with HTTPS and good access tokens, or via a VPN server redirect that is installed on both HA and your phone. Tailscale was really easy to get working. But the power has its drawbacks - adding a new cash transaction requires opening the app, choosing new transaction view, entering descriptio, amount, choosing "Cash" as source account and optionally choosing destination expense account, choosing category and budget and then submitting the form to the server. Sadly none of that really works if you have no Internet or bad Internet at the place where you are using cash. And it's just too many steps. Annoying. An easier alternative is setting up a Telegram bot - it is running in a custom Docker container right next to your Firefly (via Portainer) and you talk to it via a custom Telegram chat channel that you create very easily and quickly. And then you can just tell it "Coffee 5" and it will create a transaction from the (default) cash account in 5 amount with description "Coffee". This part also works if you are offline at the moment - the bot will receive the message once you get back online. You can use Telegram bot menu system to edit the transaction to add categories or expense accounts, but this part only work if you are online. And the Firefly instance does not have to be online at all. Really nifty. So next week I will need to write up all the regular payments as bills in Firefly (again) and then I can start writing a Python script to predict my (financial) future!

Since my initial review of the PineTime 10 days ago [1] I ve used it in more situations. My initial tests were done connecting to a Huawei Nova 7i [2], I am now using it with a Huawei Mate 10 Pro. I ve also upgraded the PineTime from version 1.11 (from memory) of the Infinitime software that runs on the watch to version 1.13 [3]. To upgrade it I had to download the file pinetime-mcuboot-app-dfu-1.13.0.zip to the Android phone and then use the File Installer option of the GadgetBridge Android app to upload it. The zip file does NOT need to be extracted first, I don t know if GadgetBridge extracts it before upload or if the PineTime firmware has a copy of unzip, but it just works. Version 1.13 is purported to take less battery, I haven t directly verified this as I turned on the new feature of measuring my pulse 24*7 which significantly increases battery use. The end result is that the battery is being used up at about the same rate as before, overall adding a new battery-hungry feature while reducing battery use for other things to compensate is a good thing and strongly suggests that battery use has decreased overall. I have noticed that now with a different phone and different version of the firmware it doesn t reconnect as reliably. Sometimes I need to turn bluetooth on the watch off and on before it works (which indicates an issue with the firmware) and sometimes I need to turn bluetooth off and on on the phone which indicates a phone issue. Also I often unlock my phone to find the GadgetBridge notification saying that it s disconnected and it usually connects fine, but I get the impression it s often disconnected. Does the Mate 10 Pro have a problem that triggers a bug in the PineTime? Does the 1.13 version of InfiniTime have a problem that triggers a bug in the Mate 10 Pro? Are they both independently buggy? Is the new version of InfiniTime just disconnecting when it s not doing stuff to save battery and triggering bugs that weren t obvious before? I ve tested the media control which basically works, sometimes it gets out of sync and displays the name of the previous track which is annoying. The PineTime is IP67 rated and there are reports on Reddit of people wearing it in the shower and swimming pool. I wouldn t recommend those things although it should work OK. It might be an option for controlling music when in the bath or when having a pool party. When the watch is running normally and displays a new notification it s not possible to swipe it away. You have to go to the notifications menu afterwards to swipe them which I find annoying. Also the notification of an inbound call remains in the notification list indefinitely while I think a more appropriate action is to have it disappear in an amount of time where it s already been answered or gone to voicemail. Voicemail timeouts are as low as 15 seconds so having the notification disappear after 1 minute would be reasonable. I have configured my PineTime to take 2 taps on the screen to wake up. I previously had it set to 1 tap and had problems with accidentally doing something it registered as a tap while in bed and waking me up. Also I found that if I want to turn the screen on when my hands are dirty so I don t want to touch it with a finger then tapping it on my nose works well. Apparently it is programmed to ignore taps on large areas so I can t wake it with my elbow. I ve setup a PineTime for an elderly relative who is greatly enjoying it. I don t expect them to flash new firmware or do any other complex things, but they are doing well with using the device. They are considering getting a different band as they don t like rubber. I m sure their local jeweler has some leather and metal bands that could fit. There is a design on Thiniverse for a PineTime case [4], this could be used for making an adaptor to fit a PineTime to a greatly different type of band, an instrument console, etc. Generally I think the PineTime is an OK smart watch for someone who s not into FOSS for it s own sake. My relative could have been happy with a slightly cheaper watch, but it s still significantly cheaper than the Samsung and Apple options so it s not particularly expensive. A benefit for them is that having the same type of SmartWatch as me they will get better tech support.

Search Results: "ban"

31 December 2023

Chris Lamb: Favourites of 2023

30 December 2023

Valhalla's Things: I've been influenced

27 December 2023

Russ Allbery: Review: A Study in Scarlet

26 December 2023

Russ Allbery: Review: A Study in Honor

21 December 2023

Russell Coker: Links December 2023

Russ Allbery: Review: The Box

19 December 2023

Matthew Garrett: Making SSH host certificates more usable

Jonathan Dowland: William Basinski, Gateshead, 2022

17 December 2023

Dirk Eddelbuettel: littler 0.3.19 on CRAN: Several Updates

13 December 2023

Melissa Wen: 15 Tips for Debugging Issues in the AMD Display Kernel Driver

9 December 2023

Simon Josefsson: Classic McEliece goes to IETF and OpenSSH

3 December 2023

Dirk Eddelbuettel: dang 0.0.16: New Features, Some Maintenance

24 November 2023

Jonathan Dowland: bndcmpr

21 November 2023

Mike Hommey: How I (kind of) killed Mercurial at Mozilla

20 November 2023

Russ Allbery: Review: The Exiled Fleet

29 October 2023

Aigars Mahinovs: Figuring out finances part 4

25 October 2023

Russ Allbery: Review: Going Infinite

22 October 2023

Ravi Dwivedi: Software Freedom Day at sflc.in

Aigars Mahinovs: Figuring out finances part 3

21 October 2023

Russell Coker: More About the PineTime