Tricky?
Checking if you're bound to TTY is trivial, checking whether you have a parent is trivial, checking whether interactive shell is somewhere in the tree is trivial, having some if's in signal handlers is trivial, etc.
Besides "daemon writers" could just default to foreground, because if it's ran as a daemon it is ran from a script hence nobody cares for extra option typing such as -d --daemon, it's written once in a file, as opposed to doing "program --foreground" every time you want it to run in front of you
Romhacking by refactoring disassembly is something that most experienced (decade+) developers do for a grand project lasting years.
You'd rather start here https://www.romhacking.net/games/884/ and read a romhacking guide. The asset editors and utilities might be enough. More advanced stuff by some asm hacking which may come in form of preexisting patches. Usually it requires understanding only a portion of game's architecture and memory layout.
If you're really keen to start such a project, as I would be keen on playing it, you're likely to spend entire first phase development in level editor getting the sprites and maps right.
Supermicro gave us same type of assistance. Then new feature of bifurcation did not work correctly. Without it, enterprise telecommunications peripheral that costs 10x more than 4 socket Xeon motherboard can't run at nominal speed, and it was ran on real lines, not test data.
They sent us custom BIOSes until it got stabilized and said they'll put the patch in the following BIOS releases.
The thing is neither Intel nor AMD nor Supermicro can test edge cases at max usage in niche environments without paying money, but they would really love to claim with backup they can be integrated for such solutions. If Intel wants to test stuff in space for free they have to cooperate with NASA; the alternative is in-house launch.
NASA has super-elaborate testbeds and simulators.
Maybe producers can provide some format/interfaces/simulators for users, users would write test-cases for it, and give back to providers to run in-house.
Not only that, reddit hive mind is plain wrong in most of the cases. Plus in number of occasions the "le reddit investigation", "we did it reddit" excrement caused real-world issues for people that they were targeting, and those people were innocent.
Reddit is ok and quite cool for targeted discussion on targeted sub-reddits. But all the general subreddits visited by general population and everything that pops once in a while on the front page is a target for hive mind.
For HN comparison, there is a lot of "wrong" here too, but here you can find a cited academic study from one good American university that reveals most of the botfarms and fake news disseminators come from western sphere. If you try to claim on Reddit or anywhere on the internet that fake news champion is not Russia+China+whoever is evil, your entry will get buried.
Also, ask yourself who's the median redditor. For my country's national subreddit the median redditor is a high school kid from the capital.
Average person doesn't have strong opinion about some bit of data irrelevant to their life.
If there is a thing, and topic about it has reached the internet discussions, the participants will have an opinion regardless of their actual practical knowhow about the thing. They'll form their opinion otherways. Platforms like Reddit favour a master opinion due to score and moderation system, so one out of N wrong theories will surface as the master opinion.
In real life, if you ask bunch of random people about the thing they don't know, you get wildly different answers, and largely no-one will back up anyone there. Certainly not in enough force to push a confidently wrong answer up as the "people's opinion"
Curious how different a long time FreeBSD user feels. I have a strong distaste for anything not nvidia.
Official nvidia drivers have been added to FreeBSD repository 21 years ago.
I can't count the number of different types of drivers used for ATi/AMD in these two decades. And none had the performance or stability.
PDF is done via an internal plugin. Standards compliant web browser doesn't have to do anything with PDF. Major browsers have internal type handler for PDF.
Similar type handler is engaged with XML. Unless you can utilize W3C standards to implement a custom markup language using XML/XSLT and have it work across browsers without plugins.
SVG is vector graphics.
For another full markup to be even considered there would have to be one that's widely adopted and realized through plugins. Nobody is making interventions in standards to open up venues for easy implementation of custom markups when those markups are used by 0.001% of publishers.
Yeah, sending a .md for client-side rendering would allow the client to reformat it more easily based on user preferences. Then again, Safari/Firefox reader mode already do an ok job with HTML for this.
But we could go so much further than reader mode. Users should have way more control over how content is rendered. But I'm something of an extremist. I don't really consider CSS/JS part of the web.
I don't really agree about CSS/JS, but either way, I've been in plenty of situations operating informational sites that just want to serve mixed text/image without worrying too much about how it's formatted. Unfortunately there isn't such an option. Regular HTML tags are supposed to do this, but most browsers won't format those in a modern-looking way. It'd save a lot of collective time if they could.
When those "informational" sites were normal 15 years ago, browser like Opera had user-CSS that you could just override, and had a number of presets. You could format the site to look like C64 BASIC.
The stuff you're talking about isn't about browsers its about the websites.
If you had a website that uses javascript to parse MD or any other markup, spit it out as trivial HTML with light DOM, client-side formatting can do everything you want.
The problem is that modern websites use patterns that workaround users' capability to customize the presentation of the website. They do not want you to look at their site the way you want.
Browsers can reformat clean HTML easily in theory, but I mean the defaults aren't nice, and most users aren't changing them. You have to use CSS to make a site look good by default.
I guess the best solution to that isn't browser-side .md rendering, though.
This is somewhat stupid from my angle (the W3C recommendation).
I don't expect that url.html is a static html file. I expect it to be server-side generated in 2024. For me site.com/page and site.com/page.html are the same. I do not expect different behavior from my web client side. So I may switch backend engine every year, and I'll just route the request sfrom page.html and that's it.
What's way worse than this is using non-HTML extensions for emitting html. I go to pichost.com/image.jpg and I get a webpage served. This is a bad pattern and it needs to go away. I'm not even going into responding differently depending on user-agent or referrer, if you have combination of these you get JPG returned, if you don't you get a webpage returned.
> What's way worse than this is using non-HTML extensions for emitting html. I go to pichost.com/image.jpg and I get a webpage served. This is a bad pattern and it needs to go away. I'm not even going into responding differently depending on user-agent or referrer, if you have combination of these you get JPG returned, if you don't you get a webpage returned.
It's mostly based on the Accept header these days (browsers don't tend to include HTML there in image contexts) and the Referer should have been removed decades ago. This means browsers (the ones with a large market share at least) are 100% complicit in enabling this behavior.
Agreed... but not what I was talking about.
HTTP has no files or extensions, it's just URL that someone named dot something. Since it doesn't have to be that file type behind, I don't expect it to.
A hypothetical megastructure Dyson's sphere would not radiate heat.
And I'm not so sure that you can apply the stealth principle here. Stealth inhibits active measurement and astronomical measurements are passive. We have sensor resolution and we have a mass of data to sift through - each time sensor generation or data processing advances, we see stuff we haven't seen before.
The data is analyzed as a dynamic system. Radar just looks at a bounce. If you setup radar incorrectly you might get false hits and no returns on valid targets. If you use a wrong model in analysis of astronomical data you're never getting anywhere close to a correct result.
A Dyson's sphere is a device to convert high frequency photons (visible light and uv) to low frequency photons (radiated “heat”). A sufficiently deep stack of shells can bring the temperature of the radiated light closer to the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, but it absolutely will radiate.
The question isn't whether Dyson speheres radiate, the question is can we detect an artificial megastructure and my answer is no, based on the hypothetical Dyson design.
That is physically impossible unless there is new physics in that hypothetical design. All physical objects radiate heat and a Dyson sphere in particular would be trivial to detect. You look take a picture of the sky in infrared and in the visible spectrum. If you find an infrared source but no associated visible star you’ve got a strong candidate for being a Dyson sphere. Such searches have actually been conducted.
Other megastructures might be discovered through the same methods as exoplanets.
Yes, but a Dyson sphere, even around a red dwarf, would be far more luminous in the infrared than a brown dwarf. It would also have a different spectrographic signature, and importantly its heat distribution would appear artificial.
Rough calculation get's me a dyson sphere big enough to bring the black body radiation of the sun down to ~4k being hundreds of times the orbit of pluto. At that point it's actually an interesting question of where you get all the mass for the nesting shells.
> A hypothetical megastructure Dyson's sphere would not radiate heat
Could you elaborate why not? All current technology I know of has an efficiency of <100%, with waste energy being lost as heat (which in space would be radiated away in the infrared spectrum). Why would this not be the case for a hypothetical dyson sphere or swarm?
Practical thing is not having to recompile 3rd party drivers (vbox ko) every time kernel gets upgraded. Tho DKMS tries to take care of that without admin intervention, it's not always bug free.
On the other side VirtualBox the software application is designed to integrate with the desktop well, VNCing into the guest is not an alternative to this.
I hope efforts will be made in FreeBSD world too against its bhyve hypervisor.
The terminology issue is curious but it has been already covered here lately in a topic about Linux direct rendering manager, DRM. The acronym was used in a narrow circle of people compared to "the whole ICT", as were keyboard-video-mouse devices. Less than 1% of professionals deal with Linux internals on that level, and less than 1% of professionals are server room on-site engineers. There wasn't collective consciousness about these terms so they got reused.
Also LVM is taken by something else (storage) and LKVM would be confusing.
I cannot even imagine using a distro that can't manage to get DKMS/kernel module updates to be reliable. I don't think I've ever had a problem with DKMS in NixOS ever; not a single time.
edit: downvoting me won't make your distro any more competent.
Besides "daemon writers" could just default to foreground, because if it's ran as a daemon it is ran from a script hence nobody cares for extra option typing such as -d --daemon, it's written once in a file, as opposed to doing "program --foreground" every time you want it to run in front of you