ban | punishment suite for Velocity with focus | Video Game library

I'm trying to build a scraping script to get a bunch of Discord server's total members. I actually did that with Puppeteer like below but I think my IP address has been banned because I'm getting "Invite Invalid" error from Discord even though invite links are working.

My question is that does Discord have APIs to get any server's total member count? Or is there any 3rd party library for that purpose? Or any other method?

How can I make it so that the administrator can indicate the reason for the ban and then the bot indicated this in the chat? Example: "!ban @NAMEorID Spam" From bot to chat: "User NAME banned. Reason - REASON"

So, fundamentally, this question is Not opinion-based. I seriously pursuit this issue objectively without feeling mostly arisen from the predominant opinion - Why is extending native objects a bad practice?

and this quesion is related but unanswered questions:

If Object.prototype is extended with Symbol property, is it possible to break code without specifically designed APIs to access Symbol in JavaScript?

Should the extension of built-in Javascript prototypes through symbols also be avoided?

The first question is already closed as they say it's opinion based, and as you might know in this community once a question is Banned, however we modified it, moderators will never bother to re-open. That is the way how the things work here.

For the second question. For some unknown reason, the question has been taken more seriously and not considered as opinion based although the context is identical.

There are two parts to the "don't modify something you don't own" rule:

1. You can cause name collisions and you can break their code.

   By touching something you don't own, you may accidentally overwrite something used by some other library. This will break their code in unexpected ways.

2. You can create tight dependencies and they can break your code.

   By binding your code so tightly to some other object, if they make some significant change (like removing or renaming the class, for example), your code might suddenly break.

Using symbols will avoid #1, but you still run into #2. Tight dependencies between classes like that are generally discouraged. If the other class is ever frozen, your code will still break. The answers on this question still apply, just for slightly different reasons.

Also, I've read opinions(how can we discuss such a thing here without "opinion" base?), they claim

a) Library code Using Symbols exists and they may tweak Symbol API (such as Object.getOwnPropertySymbols())

b) extending object property with Symbol is not different from non-Symbol property fundamentally.

Here, for the major rationale of untouching Object.prototype is due to #1, almost all answers I saw claimed that and we don't have to discuss if there is no Symbol usage.

However, Using symbols will avoid #1 as they say. So most of the traditional wisdom won't apply anymore.

Then, as #2 says,

By binding your code so tightly to some other object, if they make some significant change (like removing or renaming the class, for example), your code might suddenly break.

well, in principle, any fundamental API version upgrade will break any code. The well-known fact is nothing to do with this specific question. #2 did not answer the question.

Only considerable part is Object.freeze(Object.prototype) can be the remaining problem. However, this is essentially the same manner to upgrade the basic API by some other unexpectedly.

As the API users not as API providers, the expected API of Object.prototype is not frozen.

If some other guys touch the basic API and modifies it as frozen, it is he/she who broke the code. They upgraded the basic API without notice.

For instance, in Haskell, there are many language extensions. Probably they solve the collision issue well, and most importantly, they won't "freeze" the basic API because freezing the basic API would brake their eco.

Therefore, I observe that Object.freeze(Object.prototype) is the anti-pattern. It cannot be justified as a matter of course to prevent Object.prototype extension with Symbols.

So here is my question. Although I observe this way, is it safe to say:

In case of that Object.freeze(Object.prototype) is not performed, which is the anti-pattern and detectable, it is safe to perform extending Object.prototype with Symbols?

If you don't think so, please provide a concrete example.

I was migrating my bot from discord.py to nextcord and I changed my help command to a slash command, but it kept showing me this error:

nextcord.errors.HTTPException: 400 Bad Request (error code: 50035): Invalid Form Body

It said that the error was caused by exceeding 2000 characters in the web.

I have been trying to create a simple auto complete using Quasar's select but I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I'm doing something wrong.

Whenever I click the QSelect component, it doesn't show the dropdown where I can pick the options from.

video of the problem

As soon as I click on the QSelect component, I make a request to fetch a list of 50 tags, then I populate the tags to my QSelect but the dropdown doesn't show.

sorry, I thought I had got there after my last post, however I only got as far as accessing from a separate PL file. I'm now trying to ensure I can load the lexicon with the schema load and not everytime I call a method in my result / resultset classes (which seems like a really terrible idea).

So to try and give a complete picture, here's the script I eventually got to work:

I am developing a C++ application, where the program run endlessly, allocating and freeing millions of strings (char*) over time. And RAM usage is a serious consideration in the program. This results in RAM usage getting higher and higher over time. I think the problem is heap fragmentation. And I really need to find a solution.

You can see in the image, after millions of allocation and freeing in the program, the usage is just increasing. And the way I am testing it, I know for a fact that the data it stores is not increasing. I can guess that you will ask, "How are you sure of that?", "How are you sure it's not just a memory leak?", Well.

This test run much longer. I run malloc_trim(0), whenever possible in my program. And it seems, application can finally return the unused memory to the OS, and it goes almost to zero (the actual data size my program has currently). This implies the problem is not a memory leak. But I can't rely on this behavior, the allocation and freeing pattern of my program is random, what if it never releases the memory ?

• I said memory pools are a bad idea for this project in the title. Of course I don't have absolute knowledge. But the strings I am allocating can be anything between 30-4000 bytes. Which makes many optimizations and clever ideas much harder. Memory pools are one of them.
• I am using GCC 11 / G++ 11 as a compiler. If some old versions have bad allocators. I shouldn't have that problem.
• How am I getting memory usage ? Python psutil module. proc.memory_full_info()[0], which gives me RSS.
• Of course, you don't know the details of my program. It is still a valid question, if this is indeed because of heap fragmentation. Well what I can say is, I am keeping a up to date information about how many allocations and frees took place. And I know the element counts of every container in my program. But if you still have some ideas about the causes of the problem, I am open to suggestions.
• I can't just allocate, say 4096 bytes for all the strings so it would become easier to optimize. That's the opposite I am trying to do.

So my question is, what do programmers do(what should I do), in an application where millions of alloc's and free's take place over time, and they are of different sizes so memory pools are hard to use efficiently. I can't change what the program does, I can only change implementation details.

Bounty Edit: When trying to utilize memory pools, isn't it possible to make multiple of them, to the extent that there is a pool for every possible byte count ? For example my strings can be something in between 30-4000 bytes. So couldn't somebody make 4000 - 30 + 1, 3971 memory pools, for each and every possible allocation size of the program. Isn't this applicable ? All pools could start small (no not lose much memory), then enlarge, in a balance between performance and memory. I am not trying to make a use of memory pool's ability to reserve big spaces beforehand. I am just trying to effectively reuse freed space, because of frequent alloc's and free's.

Last edit: It turns out that, the memory growth appearing in the graphs, was actually from a http request queue in my program. I failed to see that hundreds of thousands of tests that I did, bloated this queue (something like webhook). And the reasonable explanation of figure 2 is, I finally get DDOS banned from the server (or can't open a connection anymore for some reason), the queue emptied, and the RAM issue resolved. So anyone reading this question later in the future, consider every possibility. It would have never crossed my mind that it was something like this. Not a memory leak, but an implementation detail. Still I think @Hajo Kirchhoff deserves the bounty, his answer was really enlightening.

Typescript is showing the following error within VSCode in src/main.ts, however when I run the project it runs fine without errors or warnings.

My tsconfig file is as follows:

Is there a way in gtk to make an eye icon on the right of an entry to show a password? I know there is a way to make a checkbox under an entry to show the password, but I want the button to be inside the entry, not outside. To put it simply:

What i'm looking for is this: show password icon

...and not this: show password checkbox

(I'm sorry that I cant embed the image. The site says I need 10 reputation first. I actually used to have almost 300 untill I got banned from a dislike attack. Please think before you dislike because it literally only takes ~20 to permenantly ban a year-long user. If anyone has enough reputation to edit the question and add the images in, please do)