To anyone who doesn't know who they are, here's a nice piece of investigative journalism about them: https://newrepublic.com/article/176811/united-daughters-confederacy-racist-ladies
Join us at !longreads@sh.itjust.works !
stardreamer
joined 1 year ago
My issue with them is that they make their lower tier plans too enticing. I've wanted to upgrade to pro for all the fancy gizmos but the basic mail plan is just too good a deal to upgrade.
A tumbleweed rolls in the distance...
Both Bluetooth and BLE are perfectly fine protocols. You won't be able to design much for short distance with that much power savings otherwise. The main issue is that for any protocols like this you would most likely need to put it in the 2.4ghz unlicensed band. And that's predominantly used by wifi these days.
I'm familiar with the Apollo retro-reflectors. Though in all seriousness I doubt a laser would provide a substantial amount of power (unless you have a specialty designed energy collector like in RFID)
*stares at the intern's 400 line bash script*
There are totally more flexible options. Just don't mind the front falling off. It's totally normal!
Wouldn't shining back be counterproductive for this? You want the solar panels to harness the energy, not returning it to sender
Simply changing the binary worked for me. Been more than 1 month and no migration issues.
It does still show gitea branding, however.
I believe it. Linux is not a good measure of efficiency (see kernel bypass tcp stacks, af_xdp, dpdk, spdk, etc). You can almost always make something more efficient/faster than Linux for a given task. The problem is doing that while having support for almost all hardware/configurations/uses cases under the sun.
My suggestion would be to try compiling the kernel locally.its highly likely the one packaged in your distro contains extensions that you don't have. Doing a local native compile should rule that out pretty quickly without having to disable any additional features.
Look at the line with the asm_exc_invalid_op. That seems like a hardware fault caused by an invalid asm instruction to me. Either something wrong is being interpreted as an opcode (unlikely) or maybe the driver was compiled with extensions not available on the current machine.
OP, how old is your CPU? And how old is the nic you are using?
Edit: ~~did you use a custom driver for the NIC? I'm looking at the Linux src and rt_mutex_schedule does not exist.~~ Nevermind. Was checking 4.18 instead of 6.7. found it now. The bug is most likely inside a macro called preempt_disable(). Unfortunately most of the functions are pretty heavily inlined and architecture dependent so you won't get much out of it. But it is likely any changes you made in terms of premption might also be causing the bug.
I assert that this tech is biased towards bears and racoons.