Let's look at static differences first.Absolute gravitational potential itself is impossible to measure, since all frames of reference act the same. But we can easily measure differences of potential using accurate clocks. This works well on the surface of earth in reference to outer space for example.When measuring underground, we can also measure the accceleration along the path when walking there, since the acceleration is caused by the gradient in gravitational potential.In practice though we would still use the clock method since we can measure time so much more accurately than acceleration.
Going into orbit though, we get another problem, namely we are no longer "still". The idea of gravity itself is a neat model, but it's still general relativity underneath which means effects of our movement and of "gravity" are always mixed. So you can put a clock in orbit, but have to very accurately know the exact orbit to make an absolute measurement.In effect the gps satellites have done this, and we can see their rate of time and attribute it to their orbit vs. their location, often written special vs general relativistic effects.This value is not very useful, since not only do we average over the entire orbit, we also don't know the orbit precisely enough.
We can do better though, good enough to measure changes over time.By building an even better optimized "clock".Regular clocks act kinda like gears. We have a mechanism that oscillates at a very stable high frequency, and then "gear" a mechanism to match it, but at a lower frequency, until we get to something we can measure with regular electronics. At that point, we get averages of many oscillations. We then have to send them on to a different clock, since we have nothing to measure our ticks against, for us they are evenly spaced. That receiver has to catch the very high bandwidth signal of billions of clock ticks, and compare it to a second clock.Any anomaly of the signal path will look like a shift in time, a change in gravitational potential difference of the two clocks. Worse, atomic clocks are designed mainly for long-term accuracy, so they tend to have shifts in rates over shorter timeframes. Thus, instead we strip stuff to the bare minimum, and do our own clock with blackjack and hookers and without the whole clock part where it measured time.
Einstein had a few Gedankenexperiments that still show up in lessons on relativity because they are good. One common object is a laser clock. You bounce a laser between plates, and the rate of bouncing changes according to the local rate of time. This turns out to make a pretty shitty clock, but lets you do optics on the output making for a really good comparison between two different clocks, via interferometry.
Since you need to measure two locations anyway to get the time difference, you can send out two beams of the same source, thus matching exactly, and align them on the return, making their path lengths precisely equal. On average.If you do this well enough, you can see temporary changes to this, as fast as you can measure the beam interferences, since those beams are in effect comparing at extremely high frequency.
You can now dump this instrument in orbit, and measure the changes along the orbital path, forming a high detail map of earths gravitational differences from the ideal. Or you can put it on earths surface or in outer space and wait for abrupt changes of gravity bumping into you.
Because ofc moving masses "update" the gravitational potential field, and if those updates happen quickly enough we can measure the change with our very precise change detector differential clocks, while the absolute difference might be too small to see on regular clocks, or affect all clocks equally due to great distance of the source, or the subsequent waves may cancel the change, averaging to 0.
Or would it not be possible because the sensor itself would interfere with the readings?
For one all the setups we have so far want to be extremely still, a single piece at rest. Not to prevent gravitational waves or even permanent changes in potential, but to prevent mechanical vibrations.The equipemnt is extremely light as gravitational masses go though. When you go up in scale, mass changds with volume, with the cube, but strength of gravity, of the gradient, with the square of distance. So when comparing a small interferometer sitting on a 1m satellite, its effects are a million times weaker than earth, with a diameter on the order of millions of meters. Actually far less, since the satellite isn't a solid ball of dense material.
If you wanted to you could probably spin up a large barbell shape in space right next to a gravitational wave detector and not annoy the scientists from vibrations but from the waves. Probably. Take care it's in shadow, otherwise the changes in light reflection onto the satellite would probably overshaddow your waves.
I use an encrypted rootfs without "an initramfs". Just requires some advanced fuckery.
A little known fun fact is that almost all kernels have a tiny stub-initram built into the kernel file. This is added when initram support is enabled, and is loaded before dedicated files are. It is however possible to supply your own initram directory or archive during kernel build to replace this built-in initram, so you can bake it in without leaving a separate file. No juggling with partitions, no boot options. Works just like a normal kernel "without initram", since even kernels without one usually do have that stub one anyway.
The downside is that a) you have to build the kernel, and b) the files to pack have to be available when the kernel is built, meaning you can't pack in modules of the kernel. But when building your own kernel anyway you can simply set the needed modules for encryption built-in and only pack the userspace cryptsetup executable needed for decryption, that way you get it all in a single kernel build, and the output is a single uniform kernel binary capable of decrypting your boot drive. No flags, no extra files, no access to the esp needed.
That would make it a different problem than what I saw. Either your compositor has bugs not present in its xwayland, or firefox has bugs in its wayland implementation that don't occur under x11. Seeing this is snap, that could also be causing the issue.
concerns me since I know distros are starting to default to Wayland
xwayland will be supported for a long time to come, so this would only affect users that don't know about this "fix" yet. You should be able to use firefox in x11 mode until this is fixed.
It would be good if you could check if this happens with a native (non-snap) firefox installation running on wayland. Ideally also if you could try it in a different dwm, probably kde since you are presumably using ubuntu with gnome.
They got it from catfriend who vanished. Catfriend redirected it and transferred the app signing keys to allow updates from the catfriend version. This is also why fdroid and obtanium switched it over automatically.Apparently researchxxl is a new identity made for this app, we don't know who they are.
Oh, I didn't notice. fdroid just switched it over I suppose. I even noticed the weird release notes and checked the repo but just accepted I had misremembered the repo name and maintainer name.
I recall this happening on my higher refreshrate and resolution screen on X11 and nvidia (iirc a 2070 super). Moving to wayland fixed it.I mainly noticed frame drops in videos in forefox, but I'm sure scrolling was also affected.
It probably manifests on a per usecase basis since it depends on how exactly the gpu or x11 is loaded. Whatever it is, it's some consequence of x11 being flawed at its core abd just not scaling well with modern usecases.
In my case I was forced onto wayland after I got my new better monitor due to how choppy x11 felt.I had 2 1080p 60Hz and got a 4k 120/144Hz screen.
The entire renewal process is fairly cheap, resource wise. 7 day certificates are already a thing.In terms of bandwidth you could easily renew a billion certificates a day over a gigabit connection, and in terms of performance I recon even without specialized hardware a single system could keep up with that, though that also depends on the signature algorithms employed in the future of course.
The dependence on these servers is the far bigger problem I'd say.This shortening of lifetimes is a slow change, so I hope there will be solutions before it becomes an issue. Like keeping multiple copies of certificates alive with different providers, so the one in use can silently fall through when one provider stops working. Currently there are too few providers for my taste, that would have to improve for such a system to be viable.
Maybe one day you'll select a bundle of 5 certificate services with similar policies for creating your certificate the way you currently select a single one in certbot or acme.sh
But it saves the command history to disk.It makes the exit command redundant, so that is removed from the history, but all other commands in all cases but mistakenly sshing into the wrong machine will still be saved.
# meant to disable the popup when the clipboard is changed, not working for me
device_config put systemui clipboard_overlay_enabled false
device_config put systemui clipboard_overlay_show_actions false
# google removed it, here is a linos patch in the works to roll that back
# https://review.lineageos.org/c/LineageOS/android_frameworks_base/+/380273
# for now use some way of disallowing the systemui app to read the clipboard
I revoked the clipboard read permissionnfrom systemui using a permission managing app and that has worked for 2 years now for me.
I think it only means if you do get paid reasonable amounts for open source work, you don't have to pay tax on that.So between jobs it shouldn't matter since you wouldn't pay taxes anyway, unless you worked a lot and received a lot of donations. But if you contribute after hours of a regular job, this would ensure you still get the full amount the foss project receives.
There is also mention of assistance with administration, which I'm not sure what that entails.
Albania will probably join the eu in 2030. Wait 5 years, then simply live somewhere in the eu, maybe even do most of your crimes in the eu, and you won't ever run into border checks.
Hi, didn't expect to see you here.
Let's look at static differences first.Absolute gravitational potential itself is impossible to measure, since all frames of reference act the same. But we can easily measure differences of potential using accurate clocks. This works well on the surface of earth in reference to outer space for example.When measuring underground, we can also measure the accceleration along the path when walking there, since the acceleration is caused by the gradient in gravitational potential.In practice though we would still use the clock method since we can measure time so much more accurately than acceleration.
Going into orbit though, we get another problem, namely we are no longer "still". The idea of gravity itself is a neat model, but it's still general relativity underneath which means effects of our movement and of "gravity" are always mixed. So you can put a clock in orbit, but have to very accurately know the exact orbit to make an absolute measurement.In effect the gps satellites have done this, and we can see their rate of time and attribute it to their orbit vs. their location, often written special vs general relativistic effects.This value is not very useful, since not only do we average over the entire orbit, we also don't know the orbit precisely enough.
We can do better though, good enough to measure changes over time.By building an even better optimized "clock".Regular clocks act kinda like gears. We have a mechanism that oscillates at a very stable high frequency, and then "gear" a mechanism to match it, but at a lower frequency, until we get to something we can measure with regular electronics. At that point, we get averages of many oscillations. We then have to send them on to a different clock, since we have nothing to measure our ticks against, for us they are evenly spaced. That receiver has to catch the very high bandwidth signal of billions of clock ticks, and compare it to a second clock.Any anomaly of the signal path will look like a shift in time, a change in gravitational potential difference of the two clocks. Worse, atomic clocks are designed mainly for long-term accuracy, so they tend to have shifts in rates over shorter timeframes. Thus, instead we strip stuff to the bare minimum, and do our own clock with blackjack and hookers and without the whole clock part where it measured time.
Einstein had a few Gedankenexperiments that still show up in lessons on relativity because they are good. One common object is a laser clock. You bounce a laser between plates, and the rate of bouncing changes according to the local rate of time. This turns out to make a pretty shitty clock, but lets you do optics on the output making for a really good comparison between two different clocks, via interferometry.
Since you need to measure two locations anyway to get the time difference, you can send out two beams of the same source, thus matching exactly, and align them on the return, making their path lengths precisely equal. On average.If you do this well enough, you can see temporary changes to this, as fast as you can measure the beam interferences, since those beams are in effect comparing at extremely high frequency.
You can now dump this instrument in orbit, and measure the changes along the orbital path, forming a high detail map of earths gravitational differences from the ideal. Or you can put it on earths surface or in outer space and wait for abrupt changes of gravity bumping into you.
Because ofc moving masses "update" the gravitational potential field, and if those updates happen quickly enough we can measure the change with our very precise change detector differential clocks, while the absolute difference might be too small to see on regular clocks, or affect all clocks equally due to great distance of the source, or the subsequent waves may cancel the change, averaging to 0.
For one all the setups we have so far want to be extremely still, a single piece at rest. Not to prevent gravitational waves or even permanent changes in potential, but to prevent mechanical vibrations.The equipemnt is extremely light as gravitational masses go though. When you go up in scale, mass changds with volume, with the cube, but strength of gravity, of the gradient, with the square of distance. So when comparing a small interferometer sitting on a 1m satellite, its effects are a million times weaker than earth, with a diameter on the order of millions of meters. Actually far less, since the satellite isn't a solid ball of dense material.
If you wanted to you could probably spin up a large barbell shape in space right next to a gravitational wave detector and not annoy the scientists from vibrations but from the waves. Probably. Take care it's in shadow, otherwise the changes in light reflection onto the satellite would probably overshaddow your waves.