r00ty

That’s weird. Whenever I’ve had gpu drivers fail the environment didn’t come up and I would be left at a terminal.

But, they shouldn’t need rescue. The issue is no nvidia driver, but you can still login from the text terminals. Ctrl + Alt + F3, F4 etc etc. In fact when the window environment fails to load it should drop back to terminal.

I have a 3080, so 590 is fine for me. But, I’m sure the legacy one is a dkms. But the process of installing that should be done as part of the install. E.g. you install, reboot

What does lspci -k show for the card in terms of Kernel driver in use, and kernel modules? Also what does dkms status say?

If the module is installed and showing in dkms status and showing as used in lspci -k, it should be available for desktop environments.

I do agree in terms of effort when things go wrong though. I remember when I was a lot younger and I had no problems just sitting in front of my keyboard finding whatever the latest problem is. Now, I want to be doing things with my PC.

But, a bit of debugging might be worthwhile before doing a new installation.

Did you also uninstall all of the components of the new driver as per the arch site?

https://archlinux.org/news/nvidia-590-driver-drops-pascal-support-main-packages-switch-to-open-kernel-modules/

Otherwise it’s investigate from the tty as to what driver, if any is in use for the gpu pci device.

Are you sure it was dot pitch and not dot clock?

Dot pitch on a crt might make the image look bad (trying to draw onto the shadow mask) but I doubt it would damage it.

Setting an invalid dot clock could damage some crts. But most of the modern (read from mid 90s on) would just go to the power save mode when they got a clock they couldn’t use. The warning did still remain on the xfree86 configuration guides though.

Showing my age perhaps.

More than 51 years if there’s one of those updates that will randomly decide to overwrite the UEFI removing your bootloader entirely :P

Ahh, that’s the modern terror.

I would say, now it’s learning that actually sticking your head in the sand is only ever a delaying tactic. But, if it DID learn that, it’d mean it has surpassed us already.

Yep. I also valid concerns. But those seem to be their next steps. I just wondered if there would be degradation. You wouldn’t even be able to tell until it reached the destination.

Definitely interesting stuff.

This is for communication, not computation or even cryptography. The point in transferring it this way is so as to maintain the unseen property of the photon.

I think my question on all this would be whether this would ultimately cause problems in terms of data integrity.

Currently most amplifiers for digital information are going to capture the information in the light, probably strip off any modulation to get to the raw data. Then re-modulate that using a new emitter.

The advantages of doing this over just amplifying the original light signal are the same reason switches/routers are store and forward (or at least decode to binary and re-modulate). When you decode the data from the modulated signal and then reproduce it, you are removing any noise that was present and reproducing a clean signal again.

If you just amplify light (or electrical) signals “as-is”, then you generally add noise every time you do this reducing the SNR a small amount. After enough times the signal will become non-recoverable.

So I guess my question is, does the process also have the same issue of an ultimate limit in how often you can re-transmit the signal without degradation.

Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but… I’ll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.

Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.

The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that’s generally a “store and forward” operation and thus would also break this system’s detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it’s then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.

What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever “reading” it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as “unseen” (for want of a better word). As such this will allow “secure” (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.

Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.

This is the world most of us want to live in I would think.

He is not the one to deliver it. He doesn’t really want that. If he did, he wouldn’t want $1t let alone fight to get it. Let alone all the other vile shit he has done, and will do.

Of course not. As the merovingian in the matrix says. French is a fantastic language, especially to curse with.

So far I’ve mostly avoided the whole “things that don’t need to be on the Internet” situation.

Non smart TV (well that period when they started adding smart features but they’re all out of date now so not even connected to the Internet)

All kitchen stuff is just kitchen stuff. No Internet.

Car is still offline.

Only real exception is smart thermostat, and that’s just because when the boiler was installed that’s what they put in.

It’s as true today, as it was then?

Sure. But it’s to Mars, with Musk.

Then I suggest they use an XNOR pointer instead! Checkmate patent trolls!

Or, you do the tutorial, play for an hour don’t come back for a year and don’t know what is going on.

Huh. I am sure you could search for individual books. For sure you could do it by goodreads ID I think? Yes, adding an entire author as the primary way to do things is a bit much for some. I know for sure I have managed to do individual books before now.