Re: "was only running a 1060"
Having just searched, I note that a 1060 has 6GB as standard... i.e. three times that of mine; but then it does appear to be several years younger ..
... such luxury!
1051 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
OK, I did. That page tells me some things, but is headed with "This page has been obsoleted and replaced: https://systemd.io/devdocs/MINIMAL_BUILDS.html"
If I follow the link, it 404s. A bit of searching using some text from the "obsolete" page gets me to
https://systemd.io/MINIMAL_BUILDS/
... which is rather similar to the obsoleted page (ok, so mainly its just been moved. Fine).
I'm not sure the instructions are super-clear to me (although I've probably seen worse) but it looks like they would make more sense if you were sufficiently into compiling systemd... I guess.
Yes, but perhaps there is a communication issue here - most people installing a font aren't going to see themselves as "using a font management tool", they are just going to think "I'm installing a font". Therefore if you lead reporting of this with "font management tools" it probably wont be seen as relevant or applicable - even though it is.
I suppose there might be an issue hiding here -- is it really sufficient to just leave the unspooled fibre lying on the surface? Or would it be better (or even necessary) to bury it, or (perhaps) to at least fix it securely to the ground at intervals?
Hmm.
100km of fibre doesn't just give you data from 100km away; you can get data from any point along the fibre -- so it's more like 100km of seismometers, which is a lot of instrument.
Not that makes it easier to deploy, mind, ...
(Recently I saw something similar pulled off comms fibre on the west coast of NZ ... you could see/detect cars driving along a nearby road)
I forget the exact details, but I once suffered from a post-articles-to-usenet cronjob interacting badly with an unreliable nfs mount. I think what was happening was that article in out.going could be read and was posted, but then never got deleted due to the nfs issue, so that as a result it got posted over and over again. There was quite the little forest of stuck processes when I eventually found out and looked.
I must say the email from the moderator of sci.physics.research, alerting me to this problem, was remarkably polite.
OUAT, and on the BBC B, I wrote myself a sort of text-only open-ended map-based adventure game where you could wander about in various sorts of terrain and have various sorts of encounter (i.e fighting monsters, and maybe finding food..?); I used a combination of fixed-seed RNG with weird-argument trig functions to make reproducible terrain with contiguous patches of swap/hills/etc/. It worked, and I suppose I would now have to call it "procedurally generated", but can't help feeling that that phrasing makes it sound much more well thought-out than it was...
There are indeed.
However, not everyone is a fan of distro-hopping. And if you have been with a distro for a long time, you may well have a body of experience with it that makes your life very easy and familiar.
But then if your distro-of-choice then decides on making a significant change of direction (let us e.g. say swapping to systemd) that you do not find helpful, you have essentially two options, neither very palatable: (a) swap distro and start somewhat from scratch, or (b) learn to live with this new horror imposed upon you.
Fortunately, I'm primarily a slackware user, so so far I have mostly escaped many of the big swerves like systemd, snaps, &etc. But applications I use a lot have sometimes changed under me, and the transition is not always easy - whether I choose to stick-and-adapt, or to jump-ship to something else. And even if the a-vs-b choice is indeed yours, the timing imposed is not.
Really, the statement should be "Would enough people have really cared?" - because yes, I would have cared. I needed my 6502 coprocessor to make my programs run fast enough.
Not that they were especially exciting programs, but they did keep me amused.
Geomagnetic events are, as the name suggests, magnetic, i.e. not electric (charge). And they can induce currents in the ground itself.
And albeit at a tangent to this subcommenting, it might be worth noting here that solar wind and CME interactions with the magnetosphere/ionosphere/etc are rather excitingly complicated, and all kinds of crazy and/or weird physics goes on up there (and sometimes down here). There is no guarantee that "reasonable assumptions" will be correct, unless perhaps it happens to be ones particular specialism.
No doubt because of my many sins, I have now attended a number of space weather conferences (the attendees are quite wide ranging - academics, space hardware companies, met services, government labs, the occasional from defence or civil service. As I understand it, although it is not always so easy to get rail companies to take space weather seriously, those who run power grids pay more attention. Those who run Met services (eg the UK Met Office, and its various European and US equivalents, and others around the world) tend to offer space weather predictions; and these even start by measuring current solar activity, and using it to predict the eventual terrestrial consequences. As far as I recall hearing, "Doom" is pretty unlikely, but some might have to react quite nimbly if something Carrington-like seemed to be on the way.
In NZ recently the power networks org even plugged one of their power stations into the ground and had a look to see where the current came out - here's a couple of bits of the abstract for a recent conference presentation:
"A government-funded research program in New Zealand is currently examining the impact of extreme space weather on the country's energy infrastructure. Specifically, we are interested in understanding how geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) affect high voltage power transformers. GICs manifest as quasi-DC currents within the power system and can create issues in the electrical network due to transformer saturation." [...]
"In January 2023, with the assistance of the National Grid operator Transpower, we leveraged New Zealand's high voltage DC (HVDC) transmission link to directly inject current into the ground at the Haywards substation near Wellington, New Zealand. We closely monitored the impact on two 216 MVA, 220/110 kV autotransformers, and one 80 MVA 11/110 kV step up transformer, as well as the associated transmission lines. This testing involved conducting six injection tests over a nine-day period, each lasting between one and two hours. The maximum current injected into the ground reached approximately 612A..."
I wouldn't imagine it stops the short existing - but presumably it might induce counter- or over-currents across it, in addition to what you normally expect. And so by altering the "short"current, thus also change the measurements, and hence affect the inferences you make regarding whether the short (and by implication the train) is present in some location.
Are you sure? It might be that some future digital archaeologist will more interested in the clothes worn, ther things carried, or even what might be shown - perhaps by accident - in the background of our photos than the notional "subject".
Yeah, that read weird to me as well. I assume the issue is that in the West "Allied" doesn't mean merely allied, but is strongly associated with "us good guys" (because WWII), and Axis likewise doesn't mean just "some cooperating countries", but also "those bad guys" (cf WWII again). How can (or why are) we - as targets of a pro-Russian DDos crew - be an "Axis"?
So if you are talking about Russia and those cooperating with it, "allies" would be correct but might confuse us western readers; but calling the crew's targets the "Allies" would be even worse (why are they targetting allies??). So they (the writer) used "axis" instead, trying to use the "otherness" implication of axis, but starting from a Russian point of view. I.e. that if we might say "The Marvellous UK and her Wonderful Allies" and "That Axis of Problematic Countries Opposed to us"; then *they* might perhaps say "Our Great Russian Nation and our Allies" and "That Inconvenient UK and its Axis of Nuisances".
Bah humbug, I've now spent too long thinking about this, and failed to be as clear as I would like. Why couldn't they just say "target"? Much clearer and without confounding associations.
To be pedantic, *every other* is not only an ambitious claim, it is also wrong: Notably, xedit, the minimal default X windows editor uses it to delete selections, not windows; as do both xterm and xfce-terminal, and aXe (an old school editor). My (perhaps unreliable) understanding was that Ctrl+W as delete-selection was standard/default X windows behavior (as is somewhat implied by usage xterm and xedit), although naturally that isn't enforced by the X-police.
"Many other" might be correct, I suppose, but given the extraordinary variety of editors and other programs out there it might be hard to be sure. It seems that in your usage, one thing is dominant, but on mine the other is.
Mainly, I am just irritated that since programs I usually use follow X, that I cannot at least set a config option to remap Ctrl+W in firefox, especially given all the other weird things firefox allows me to change.
PS: naturally, as I typed this, a muscle-memory use of Ctrl+W as delete-selection meant that I lost the first draft. :-/
... and then there is what firefox insists on doing in response to Ctrl+W (close tab), but which is -- in very many other editor-type things -- merely "delete selection". Thus an attempt to remove an extraneous phase instead becomes "delete my entire carefully constructed prose/argument/rant", and throw away the tab to boot. I read somewhere online of someone who said they have to go as far as patching and compiling firefox from source itself to avoid this, because that is apparently what it takes (!).
But I suppose if you were going to worry about when a satellite might become non-functional in the future (whether by accident or end-of-life), then having a detumbler already installed might be sensible. But perhaps a detumbler might have unwanted side-effects..?
I think the distinction between likely human and machine learning is not necessarily about the input stage, but rather the output stage, and the possibility of (non-trivial) monetisation.
If I were to read and remember a lot of Harry Potter trivia, I have spent a great deal of effort, and at best will be able to impress Harry Potter fans, or appear on quiz programs; if I try to make money off it at some point some rights holder's are going to make claims. I might instead program that weird and entirely unreplicable machine I (hypothetically) have in my shed; but again this doesn't change the situation - it can be an amusing curiousity, but little more, or rights holder could quite reasonably come calling.
In contrast the whole *point* of these text-ingesting LLM's is to be reproduced at scale, used at scale, and monetised at scale. So naturally they (should) have to deal with the rights holders whose materials they have ingested, and ingested primarily as a commercial activity in search of profit. Of course, they are perfectly welcome to instead keep their LLM's as amusing and unique curiosities, making little or no money for anybody; and if so rights holders would no doubt be mostly content to simply marvel at all this LLM cleverness. But there seems little likelihood that the "amusing curiosity" route is the point - the intent is replication, use, and significant monetisation.
I wonder whether an "almost diode" might be more useful, where the reverse channel is low bandwidth and (eg) only consists of a few bits - so you might be able to say say e.g. "I hear you ok" and "please resend" once a minute (or whatever), but nothing else. So there'd be less to lock down, and complicated exploits would be very slow, even if you could work out what to do.
You can already use differential GPS if you need accuracy, which is the sort of thing you might do if doing some sort of survey-by-drone arrangement. But I guess this idea could allow you to get improved - but not as good - accuracy, whilst needing to be slightly less organized about how you achieve it: :-)
FWIW, the article says the system uses radio waves, so the visible colour is unlikely to be relevant.
Further, since the claim is system is sensitive to shifts of only a few millimeters, any new (or tampered-with) barrel would have to match the original sizing and positioning closely.
It might indeed not be tamper proof. But it would make any tampering process at least somewhat more complicated than it was before, and therefore arguably more risky. Just because the idea is not a panacea does not mean it is not useful as part of a suite of controls.
FWIW, "principal investigator" is in fact a term used in research grant applications in the UK, as in the person who led the submission, and who would (or will) be in charge of the execution of the project. Terms like "lead researcher" do not have those specific in-charge and/or administrative overtones.
Well, yes and no -- it's called "dark matter" because whilst indeed it could be anything, it isn't being seen (dark), and it seems to be have properties consistent with matter. In this it might either be hot or cold dark matter (with different implications), and very much differs from dark energy (doesn't seem to behave like matter).
So it's not "we have no clue" -- there are *some* constraints on it's properties.
However, someone has to agree to supervise the PhD, and most very likely wouldn't want the drag of an insufficiently capable student. It's not like some supervising Professor X gets to pocket the fees.
"Opposite charge" would be better than "spin" ... at least for sufficiently general notions of charge (e.g. arguably dated usages such as where lepton number <-> lepton charge).
The problem with using "spin" is that - for the symmetry-based "spin", unless the object is spin zero, there is both a total spin and spin components; and the total spin is always positive, and the sign of the component is irrelevant to the particle/antiparticle determination.
Using "charge" in the generalized sense is also confusing, given that you might conflate/confuse it with (only) electrical charge; and not the specific implication of "oppositely charged to the normal (i.e. non-anti) version of the particle".