fidzu : debian

A new minor release 0.4.28 of RQuantLib arrived on CRAN this evening, has been uploaded to Debian, and is being built for r2u as well.

QuantLib is a rather comprehensice free/open-source library for quantitative finance. RQuantLib connects (some parts of) it to the R environment and language, and has been part of CRAN for nearly twenty-three years (!!) as it was one of the first packages I uploaded to CRAN.

This release of RQuantLib brings a minor update to the calendars for Israel which in QuantLib 1.43 can now use one of three different exchange choices. However, using 'settlement' is now deprecated so we adjusted our code. This came up as we had packaged the 1.43-rc version of the (upcoming) 1.43 release a few days ago, and it is now in testing requiring RQuantLib to catch up. Full details from the NEWS file follow as usual.

Changes in RQuantLib version 0.4.28 (2026-07-10)

• Adjust to Israel calendar constructor change in QuantLib 1.43

• Continuous integration uses ccache-with-R action

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is also a diffstat report for the this release. As always, more detailed information is on the RQuantLib page. Questions, comments etc should go to the rquantlib-devel mailing list. Issue tickets can be filed at the GitHub repo.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

11 Jul 2026 3:35am GMT

I used to ice skate as a teenager but I stopped at University. I tried to pick it back up in 2024 but had to stop when I got ill. I restarted in 2025, initially with a weekly skate session but last month I started group hockey skate lessons.

There's not a lot of pics of me skating… this one from an IR camera

I've been skating in a pair of Bauer¹ Nexus N77s that I bought 7 years ago on a work trip to Toronto. These did a great job of getting me back into the hobby for 6 years but recently I felt it was time to step up to a better quality pair. Despite being a size down from my shoe size, the Nexuses are too large: I had been compensating with thick socks but still struggling to get the boots tight enough. I'd have to wear gloves to lace up because I'd cut my hands pulling the laces otherwise.

After too long researching/deliberating/kvetching (very much on trend for me) I upgraded to Bauer Vapor Fly30s another half-size down (and nearly ten times as much). The fit is much better, in almost every respect. They actually go on easier and I don't have to tear my hands tightening the laces. They feel like a natural extension of my feet. I seem to be using a different set of muscles to skate, so the first few sessions were very fatiguing, but that settled. The Vapor line is speed-oriented, which I thought would fit my skate style best.

new and old skates

I have unfortunately gained a common problem: arch pain. More precisely, my navicular bone seems to be quite prominent², and that part is pressing uncomfortably into the boot. Boots typically take a few sessions to break in, but after 7-8 sessions the pain was getting to the stage that I couldn't skate for a full session without being in agony.

The last time I skated I tried to throw everything at the problem: I'd had the skates baked³; bought some orthotic insoles; then some "Bunga" pads over the sore bit and an attempt to more loosely tie the laces over the affected area. I tried a ten minute skate, and it seemed a bit better.

I then tried experimentally to swap back to my old skates, and I felt like Bambi: I just couldn't do it! They didn't press on the navicular, and they're softer so you can compensate for the size with tight lacing, but I had no confidence in them, I couldn't lean into the turns. They just felt weird. I realised there's no way back.

I switched back to the fly30s, adjusted the bunga pad positioning, tweaked the lacing and went back on for about 40 minutes. It went well: the rink was quiet, it was cool whilst we had a heat wave outside, so I worked up a sweat. By the end there was some discomfort, but not too much, and I think partly the area is currently sensitive so just about anything will cause discomfort. Fingers (or toes) crossed that I've mitigated the problem! If not, it might be time to try a punch out.

10 Jul 2026 8:57pm GMT

"You are what you eat" - but perhaps this is even more true of our information diet. It is hard to strike a balance between remaining a well-informed citizen versus spending hours ingesting unnecessary news about issues and events we can't affect. But I'm increasingly convinced that my hours lost to doomscrolling are down to design choices by web publishers rather than a failure of individual willpower.

We have created an "obesogenic" information environment

I don't think it is just me - I think our information environment has been progressively altered over time as news sites look to maximize engagement. Even outside of social media, the invisible hand of the market for eyeballs forces sites to optimize for browse time or risk irrelevance.

Even as newspapers find it increasingly difficult to fund good journalism through advertising in an online world, especially local journalism, they need to keep readers on their sites, clicking through as many articles as possible. Clickbait headlines, "urgent" flashing live icons to draw the attention, and many opportunities to leap from one article to another, and another.

But this design approach even extends to news organisations with a different funding model, like BBC News, which is a public service (state-owned but arms-length) organisation funded through a mandatory television licence - a matter of controversy in some quarters. And it extends even to sites where I pay a subscription fee; I might get adverts removed, but I am still bombarded with the same design philosophy; too many opportunities to be pulled away from what I'm reading towards some other unrelated article.

Even if I try and limit my exposure to algorithmic "discovery" of new news, via RSS feeds or similar, if I'm reading the full article in a browser then I am prompted to read more stuff that I didn't intend. This defeats the benefit of curating a set of feeds, because you still get dragged away to random articles.

Only 44% of BBC News is news

To show you what I mean, I'm going to pick on the BBC, although I love them dearly and the same issue very much applies elsewhere.

I've taken a screenshot of a random BBC News article in mobile view (my preferred doomscrolling user access device), and measured approximately what proportion of the full length of the page is taken up by each section. This is a fairly in-depth news article, so I reckon if anything the figures would be worse than this on shorter articles.

(These numbers will not sum to 100% for reasons which are obvious if you look at the crossbars. Also they're approximations.)

Less than half of the page (44% if you exclude the inline related links) is actual news text/images; the rest are links trying to help you find the next thing to read/watch. I do not want this.

I'm sure this A/B tests well in terms of reader figures, but it sometimes leaves me exhausted - it must take subconscious mental energy to ignore, or I spend too much time trying to keep on top of things.

And remember, this is a publicly-funded site that does not rely on advertising!

Blocking out the noise

If you are technically-minded, you can use an ad-blocker such as uBlock Origin to take back some control. Applying the following lines as a custom filter (Settings > My filters) brutally cuts out almost all of these links:

bbc.co.uk##aside
bbc.co.uk##footer>div:has(h2)
bbc.co.uk##[data-block="uploaderEmbed"]
bbc.co.uk##[data-block="links"]

Caveat emptor: I have not road-tested this for more than half an hour, so who knows what consequences this could have on your web browsing. In particular, international readers outside the UK will likely be redirected to bbc.com, the commercial arm of the BBC, where these rules will need adapting.

Is it unethical to use an ad-blocker to remove these links? I would argue not. I am not depriving the BBC of any revenue, because I pay my licence fee. I might reduce the amount of time I spend on their website, but if anything the subjectively better experience might encourage me to consume more news from them, not less. In other circumstances (outside the UK for instance, where the BBC relies on advertising), the balance might be different.

Product managers, please find better metrics

I lament the state of the internet in 2026. I now can't unsee these innocuous "related stories" links as a mechanism to grab my attention, and it's gone too far.

If you are a normal person just browsing the news and looking to discover the latest important stories relatively quickly, I can see that these types of links might actually be useful for discovery; but I'm actually reasonably sure that I'm not going to miss out on anything major. You still have the option of the news home page if you want to be presented with more news for example, and it feels natural to go back to there when you've run out of stories to consume.

But it shouldn't be down to individual responsibility to ignore or geekily block these types of link; news sites with alternative funding models should find better metrics for engagement than "hours spent on site" - how about optimizing for customer mental wellbeing, or minimizing time required to catch up with the news? There's no need to maximize clicks and eyeballs. This is a societal level issue, because we are all going mad with news over-engagement.

Product managers, over to you.

10 Jul 2026 3:00pm GMT