If a website requires so few characters that I have to create custom rule in my password manager for it... then it's a website I'm strongly inclined not to use.
Sadly, a lot of these websites deal with finances or employment.
inetknght
joined 1 year ago
make -j will create unlimited jobs. If you have very few CPU cores you will likely overload your CPU with tens or hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of compilation jobs.
Each one of those jobs will need RAM. If you eat up all of your RAM then your computer will hit swap and become unusable for hours (at best) or days. I've had a computer chug along for weeks in swap like that before OOMkiller decided to do things. And the worst part is the Out-Of-Memory killer decided to kill all the wrong things...
The -j argument has an optional additional argument. The additional argument is the limit to the number of jobs. The best thing you can do is (roughly) use make -j$(nproc). That will give the number of processors as an optional argument to -j. If your build line gets parsed (as is common in an IDE) then you might replace "$(nproc)" with a hard number. So if you have 20 cores in your CPU then you might do -j20. If you only have 8GB of RAM with your 20 cores then maybe you give it -j8. I saw one guy try to get fancy with math to divide up CPU and RAM and ... it was just way more complicated to get at the same number as nproc :)
I, personally, just buy more RAM. Then with my 20 cores and 64GB of RAM, there's plenty of headroom for compilation in the background for each one core and also room in RAM for a browser for documentation and IDE for all the editing. Developer machines are known for being resource hogs. Might as well lean in to that stereotype just a tiny bit.
And one tiny edit:
I highly suggest you start to read the manual. man make will tell you all about how -j works :) and man nproc and there's tons of others too. I love git's manual pages, they're pretty awesome.
man make tells:
-j [jobs], --jobs[=jobs] Specifies the number of jobs (commands) to run simultaneously. If there is more than one -j option, the last one is effective. If the -j option is given without an argument, make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.
Borrow against the value of the securities, obviously
Yeah, borrow against the value of the securities!
Who will pay the debt when I die? My children via the estate? My children via the bank's increasingly higher fees? My children via taxpayer-funded loan "forgiveness"? Sounds like a Bernie Madoff scheme to me. Best keep my money under the mattress.
I was so stunned when I left college and realized how much I have to limit my vocabulary around most people. It made me feel distant from many of my peers.
To be fair, there are a lot of things that you learn in college that are supposed to be specialized for your field of study.
I was told that I was being condescending when I use words that nobody else understands. To put it in the words of one boss: @inetknght, you're smart and you do good work. But, @inetknght, you can't handle stupid. So I have to move you to another team.
It was kind've eye-opening to realize that stupid people don't just exist. They're all around us. Always have been. Being moved to my own team of one just so people wouldn't feel dumb around me definitely made me feel distant too.
Windows
It never was free.
MacOS
It's not free any more.
TempleOS
I'm not religious.
So, I guess I get to stay on Linux for longer. Well, damn!
Retirees should be living off of dividends, 401ks and IRAs, not volatile stock sell offs.
If you're only going to live another 10 or 20 years but you have $1M stashed... do you take the $1M now and buy a fancy house? Or do you keep that $1M going for the... checks math ... few tens of thousands of dollars it'll earn in yearly dividends? Meanwhile your daughter needs a new hair-do, your son is living in your basement again, and your wife... well she's your wife. And she wants that new car that you promised you'd get her when you retire.
I guess it's back to the grind instead.
https://kagi.com/search?q=pubmed+download+full+text
-> https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/pubmed/quicktours/fulltext/index.html
It looks like the two articles I linked don't have free sources available. You might also search for the co-authors of the studies -- for example the first author in the first study has other citations https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Creeth+JE&filter=simsearch2.ffrft with full text available. You could download those, obtain the author's contact information, and send a request for a copy of the one you want. Just be nice about it :) If that doesn't work then maybe you have a friend with a "subscription" to download such things... from school or work or... something.
AFAIK there has never been an actual evidence-based study for how long and how often you should brush and floss.
The National Institute of Health has a ton of public-paid studies. Did you even bother to search it before making your astounding claim? https://www.nih.gov
Just one search for nih brush time shows several studies. Let me just link the top two...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19723429/ -> "This study was undertaken to measure plaque removal during untutored brushing over timed periods between 30 and 180 seconds with"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16355646/ -> "This review shows that there is consensus in the literature that (meticulous) tooth brushing once per day is sufficient to maintain oral health and to prevent caries and periodontal diseases. Tooth brushing is also regarded as an important vehicle for application of anti-caries agents, such as fluorides. However, most patients are not able to achieve sufficient plaque removal by performing oral hygiene measures at home. Therefore, tooth brushing twice daily is recommended by most of the dentists in order to improve plaque control."
OP poses one question with two parts. The first study answers the time (2-3 minutes) part. The second link answers the other part (twice daily).
Give it time. Cell phones are getting more powerful every day.
As for misinformed... sure it's possible. But I doubt it. Llama isn't chat gpt but it runs pretty well on my machine. Is it perfect? No, of course not. Neither is ChatGPT. But it's "good enough" for what I need it for, and it certainly could be "good enough" for many other users.
What's the gain of a LLM for a virus? Well that... is a little more esoteric. It's about as esoteric as encrypting hard drives. Crypto malware isn't always a virus either. Imagine a LLM in a virus used to determine if a given file's content is worth extracting from the device. I haven't yet figured out all of the side ventures but I can see a use for it.
How could an intelligence that requires massive amounts of CPU, RAM, and database storage even concievably
What you define as "massive" amounts might still be large amounts for most consumers. But even then it's not... really. Developers frequently fit these models in their own laptops. Some of the ML models fit on an iPhone or Android phone. It can generate ten, or hundreds of words (tokens) per second.
So the fact that they don't need massive amounts of CPU, RAM, and database storage is rather the point. Imagine if it could escape and multiply. It could conceivably do so quite quickly given current technology.
Cinnamon is, straight up, the best. The only annoying part is that damn debugger thing that shows up that damn and useless LookingGlass thing which defaults to Super+L. Super+L definitely should be Lock Screen instead.
You're trying to tell me that borrowing against securities solves the problem. But it only moves the problem.
If I borrow against the securities, I get cash. I use that cash. I now have zero cash (again). Then I die a horribly quiet death with megabucks owed for loans against the securities. The estate does not have cash to pay back those loans. You're saying those securities would be sold... for more profit than what I borrowed against? Then it sounds like I didn't borrow against their full value. And if I did borrow against their full value, then the loan cannot be paid back because the cash is spent.