cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
RedHat was a major military contractor with job postings like this current one [archive] long before they were bought by another older and larger military contractor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_World_War_II
https://web.archive.org/web/20240530005438/https://www.redhat.com/en/resources/israeli-defense-forces-case-study (original is 404 for some reason)
Lets Enhance is a pretty great supercut, but nothing beats the original Blade Runner scene.
enhance 224 to 176
enhance, stop
move in, stop
pull out, track right, stop
center and pull back, stop
track 45 right, stop
center and stop
enhance 34 to 36
pan right and pull back, stop
enhance 34 to 46
pull back, wait a minute, go right, stop
enhance 57 to 19
track 45 left, stop
enhance 15 to 23
give me a hardcopy right there
The canonical documentation is https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst (ctrl-f oom) but if you search a bit you’ll find various guides that might be easier to digest.
https://www.baeldung.com/linux/memory-overcommitment-oom-killer looks like an informative recent article on the subject, and reminds me that my knowledge is a bit outdated. (TIL about the choom(1) command which was added to util-linux in 2018 as an alternative to manipulating things in /proc directly…)
https://dev.to/rrampage/surviving-the-linux-oom-killer-2ki9 from 2018 might also be worth reading.
How to make your adjustments persist for a given desktop application is left as an exercise to the reader :)
I’m not sure what this comic is trying to say but in my recent experience a single misbehaving website can still consume all available swap at which point Linux will sometimes completely lock up for many minutes before the out-of-memory killer decides what to kill - and then sometimes it still kills the desktop environment instead of the browser.
(I do know how to use oom_adj; I’m talking about the default configuration on popular desktop distros.)
404 Media neglected to link to her website, which is https://ada-ada-ada.art/
I think it depends which side of the debate one is on?
$ systemd-analyze calendar tomorrow
Failed to parse calendar specification 'tomorrow': Invalid argument
Hint: this expression is a valid timestamp. Use 'systemd-analyze timestamp "tomorrow"' instead?
$ systemd-analyze timestamp tuesday
Failed to parse "tuesday": Invalid argument
Hint: this expression is a valid calendar specification. Use 'systemd-analyze calendar "tuesday"' instead?
ಠ_ಠ
$ for day in Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun; do TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar "$day 02-29"|tail -2; done
Next elapse: Mon 2044-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 19 years 4 months left
Next elapse: Tue 2028-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 3 years 4 months left
Next elapse: Wed 2040-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 15 years 4 months left
Next elapse: Thu 2052-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 27 years 4 months left
Next elapse: Fri 2036-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 11 years 4 months left
Next elapse: Sat 2048-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 23 years 4 months left
Next elapse: Sun 2032-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 7 years 4 months left
(It checks out.)
Surprisingly its calendar specification parser actually allows for 31 days in every month:
$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-29' && echo OK || echo not OK
Original form: 02-29
Normalized form: *-02-29 00:00:00
Next elapse: Tue 2028-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
From now: 3 years 4 months left
OK
$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-30' && echo OK || echo not OK
Original form: 02-30
Normalized form: *-02-30 00:00:00
Next elapse: never
OK
$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-31' && echo OK || echo not OK
Original form: 02-31
Normalized form: *-02-31 00:00:00
Next elapse: never
OK
$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-32' && echo OK || echo not OK
Failed to parse calendar specification '02-32': Invalid argument
not OK
headline was more exciting before i read the last four words of it
In some places it is:
would this text land differently if “public school” were replaced with “school”? 🤔
see it’s conciser?
Like… okay… I know this is me in the new brain, I’ll shut down the other one.
the other one: i’m pretty sure you’ve got it backwards, pal
I was referring to the “This is actually a good sign for self driving” part of their comment.
The captcha circumvention arms race has been going on for over two decades, and every new type of captcha has and will continue to be broken as soon as it’s widely deployed enough that someone is motivated to spend the time to.
So, the notion that an academic paper about breaking the current generation of traffic-related captchas (something which the captcha solving industry has been doing for years with a pretty high success rate already) is “good news” for the autonomous vehicle industry (who has also been able to identify such objects well enough to continue existing and getting more regulatory approval for years now) is…
i hope you’re joking. please, tell me you’re joking?
Copy left is very much not communist. Get out of here with that tankie rhetoric
i don’t actually think copyleft is communist per se, but i dig that you’re somehow mad about my joke - the intended butt of which was people who (typically disparagingly) insist that it is 😂
yep, since it’s under a “copyleft” (communist) software license that’s how it has to be.
I wrote a comment here about why sealed sender does not achieve what it purports to.
I wish we’d stop calling them “exploding batteries”. The battery isn’t the explosive, it’s the explosives that were hidden in the device.
Do you want to stop calling them exploding pagers too? How about other exploding things? And what should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions be renamed to? Maybe 2024 Lebanon explosions of explosives inside of pagers? 🙄
big oof.
the author of this substack is woefully misinformed about the state of technology 🤦
it has, in fact, been possible for several years already for anyone to quickly generate convincing images (not to mention videos) of fictional scenes in real locations with very little effort.
Wow, it keeps getting worse. They’re going full CSI on this photo, drawing a circle around a building on google street view where they think the photographer might have been, but they aren’t even going to bother to try to confirm their vague memory of having seen AP publishing it? wtf?
Fwiw, I also thought the image looked a little neural network-y (something about the slightly less-straight-than-they-used-to-be lines of some of the vehicles) so i spent a few seconds doing a reverse image search and found this snopes page from which i am convinced that that particular pileup of cars really did happen as it was also photographed by multiple other people.