cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
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
In some places it is:
Copying my comment from another thread about this:
They’re going to be “sovereign” over the whole archipelago, but only as long as they don’t exercise their sovereignty over the largest island in it which constitutes more than half of its total land area (30 km2 of 56.13 km2).
Today’s political agreement is subject to the finalisation of a treaty and supporting legal instruments, which both sides have committed to complete as quickly as possible. Under the terms of this treaty the United Kingdom will agree that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. At the same time, both our countries are committed to the need, and will agree in the treaty, to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base on Diego Garcia which plays a vital role in regional and global security. For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.
The treaty will address wrongs of the past and demonstrate the commitment of both parties to support the welfare of Chagossians. Mauritius will now be free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, other than Diego Garcia, and the UK will capitalise a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians.
It will also herald a new era of economic, security and environmental partnership between our two nations. To enable this partnership the UK will provide a package of financial support to Mauritius. This will include an indexed annual payment for the duration of the agreement and the establishment of a transformational infrastructure partnership, underpinned by UK grant funding, to deliver strategic projects generating meaningful change for ordinary Mauritians and boosting economic development across the country. More broadly, the UK and Mauritius will cooperate on environmental protection, maritime security, combating illegal fishing, irregular migration and drug and people trafficking within the Chagos Archipelago, with the shared objective of securing and protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. This will include the establishment of a Mauritian Marine Protected Area.
Nice touch making a new “Marine Protected Area” in the process; the current “Chagos Marine Protected Area” was created entirely to, well… lets let this 2009 US diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks explain:
1. (C/NF) Summary. HMG would like to establish a “marine park” or “reserve” providing comprehensive environmental protection to the reefs and waters of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official informed Polcouns on May 12. The official insisted that the establishment of a marine park – the world’s largest – would in no way impinge on USG use of the BIOT, including Diego Garcia, for military purposes. He agreed that the UK and U.S. should carefully negotiate the details of the marine reserve to assure that U.S. interests were safeguarded and the strategic value of BIOT was upheld. He said that the BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve. End Summary.
I wonder how the “treaty will address wrongs of the past”; somehow I doubt it will involve any mention of the CIA torture site there.
Formally.
Right, so why are you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?
The title is a copy+paste of the first sentence of the third paragraph, and it is not misleading unless you infer “exploding batteries” to mean “exploding unmodified batteries”. But, the way the English language works, when you put explosives inside an XYZ, or do something else which causes an XYZ to explode, it becomes an “exploding XYZ”. For example:
The fact that bombs are explosive is not revolutionary or all that interesting.
That fact also is not what the article is about.
Of course not, what did you expect?
I encourage you to, it’s pretty interesting.
Since apparently many people aren’t reading the article: It is about how cheap it actually is (eg $15,000) to buy a complete production line to be able to manufacture batteries with a layer of nearly-undetectable explosives inside of them, which can be triggered by off-the-shelf devices with only their firmware modified.
Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
What if there were an outside force that was attacking students/university
That happened at UC Los Angeles a few months ago; the university police chief and 19 of his officers stood by and watched the attacks for over 3 hours before intervening: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/05/11/ucla-protests-police-inaction-fights/
UC Merced annual training required only 7 rounds, while UC San Francisco used 7000 and UC Santa Barbara used 9000 🤔
Shoutout to UC Davis for having the only police department on the list who “did not use any military equipment during this timeframe”.
For some reason the linked PDF varies from the screenshot in several ways, though most of the numbers are the same. (UC Riverside’s number of rounds of .556-range ammunition used in training is 3000 in the screenshot but 6000 in the PDF now.)
I was curious how much this launcher costs:
… over here I see this glorified paintball gun is normally $2400 but currently on sale for just $1850.
Ads?! in Ubuntu? Never! They were simply “integrating online scope results into the home lens of the dash” 🤡
(that is an actual quote from the sentence immediately following “We’re not putting ads in Ubuntu” in Mark Shuttleworth’s blog post responding to the entirely predictable backlash after they did this, twelve years ago…)
(my contribution to lemmy’s beans arc)
That label is there because I’m subscribed to XBlock Screenshot Labeller and it misclassified this image. (You can find here and here more info about how labelers in ATP work…)
i hope you’re joking but if you’re not i assume you live in the bay area? if you want to go to their pitch tonight, here’s its eventbrite.
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 :)