• 1 Post
  • 87 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • The direct numerics of moors law may not be definite.

    But the principal it defines is. In the future computers will have much more power then they do now.

    The reason modern GPUs use things like shaders etc is to allow them to archive massive manipulation of data in more efficient ways specific for the task desired.

    Honestly this is why I mention time scale as the main thing that will make this possible. How modern gpus or other specialised processers do the task is less important then what the game code is asking the gpu to achieve.

    The idea that at a unknown future date. The CPU GPUs or what ever future tech we have. will never be able to run fast enough to read current cpu or gpu instruction sets. And generate the effect defined using future techniques is not viable as an argument. The only questions are how long and is anyone going to have the motivation to reverse engineer the large but finite instruction sets used by secretive hardware corps today.


  • Not so sure about that. When you consider time spans.

    Currently we can emulate the majority of early games consoles. So theoretically with time and Moors law any hardware will be emulate able in a few decades. With enough information.

    The advantage of open source software. Is it can be used with the original binaries to reverse engineer the instruction set even if the original manufacturer wishes to hide it. So with will and effort even the most complex hardware will be able to be emulated on future much faster hardware.





  • Blasphemy quick stone the unbelievers.

    Kidding of course. Have to admit I agree. I’ve used Linux since the late 1990s. So long long before it was usable by most folks standards.

    I started because my university had HPUX machines that we needed to submit work on. So wanted a unix like enviroment at home I could work on. This was a tim when linux was basically slackers on 50plus floppy disks. Xwindows needed configuring for every monitor. Honestly by current standards usability was non existant compared to windows.

    But honestly I spent so much time on the system. And watched it improve. To the point I find windows an utter pain in the arse now. And will avoid it under all circumstances.

    But the idea of convincing folks who have no interest. Where the hell do folks find the time.




  • I sorta agree.

    Unfortunately modern science is slow to change ideas it has accepted in the past.

    Neil Degrass Tyson did an interesting talk on the % of religion in science. Based in the US. And it basically indicated that the higher you get. The lower the odds you belie in religiose ideals.

    But the levels were pretty high until the top. And still not 0 then.

    I personally think (opinion not fact) this has left us with a community. That hesitates to challenge science on religion alone. IE we don’t see ideas thrown out when it is clear religion was involved in forming them. But instead only when clear evidence refutes them.

    In my less the humble opinion. This leaves science with a few old wives nuns tails. That are still followed 400years after the 1689 acceptance of the scientific method.


  • Honestly Humanity has been pretty arrogant. Took 100s of years before we recognised birds use tools. Mainly because everytime it was seen. Some other excuse was seen for why the bird was sticking a stick into a tree. Science was so sure mankind was unique it was unwilling to see reality.

    But honestly if you think that is bad. Do some research into why European explorers thought Europe represented the most advanced civilisation. African cities raised to the ground rather then face the idea they may have been their before us.


  • Sorry but those are assumtions based on the idea that the earth is unique.

    It is now estimated thatt trillions of plannests wxist in the milky way alone. And abiur 2 million galaxies in the observable universe. We have absolutly no idea how common ir complex the start of life is. Ands assuming we are in anyway unique is not a scientific answer with the knowlesge we have. It is just an assumption.

    If life is common and we habe no way of knowing that is not the case. Then we also have ansolutly no way of knowing how common intelegence is.

    If intelegence is common. It is reasonable to assume with time radio is an easy invention. Cos lets face it. Based on our data the least intelegent civilization we know off. And the most intelegent discovered it withing 5k years of discovering what we call civalusation.

    So again the idea that it is complex for a life to evolve and develop radio is nothing but an assumption. Admitadly a common one. But not one based on any evidence at all. Instead one that is common mainly due to arrogance of mankind assumeing earth must be unique. Just because we lack the tech to see any others.

    As for the odds of us developing in time to hear others. Again. The number of plannets and variaty of distances throw that argumebt in the trash.

    The estimated number is so great. That no matter when i. The last *estimated" 13.7 billion years we look at. Odd ate high that nillions of planetz exist at the correct distance for us to hear them at some point in the last 100 years of radio until we die as a race.

    Again i want to repeat. I am not saying this is such. I have no idea.so to say it is woild be absurdly arragant. And i am far to pessimistic to think such will happen in my lifetime.

    I am only sayiing when you remove the (scientifically unviable based on current knowledge) idea that the earth is unique for some reason. Abd add it to the evidence we have found of how many potential planets are in the universe.

    Occams Razer is in no way valid to assume it cannot or is provably not alians.


  • The simplest explanation is NOT the evolution of an entire other species that survives all the way through to advanced tech to send radio signals.

    That make a huge huge religion level assumption. That creats so much complexity to throw occam out ass a viable answer.

    Is earth unique.

    Without assuming the greatest abundance of evidence we have is unique. Then no occams razer is in no way able to make the existance of other planets having reached a similar status as complex.

    I’ll repeat again. I in no way think it is. I just challenge that occam is a viable evidence it is not.

    As assuming earth is more complex then any other phenomenon in space. Requires you to explain why earthonly happened once. In the huge amount of time astrology is able to see. And vast space.

    Any answer that comes is almost paradoxical in its level of complexity. Without more evidence.


  • Hmm not so sure.

    Hear me out. I am not actually saying it is alians. Just questioning that it is not is the logical conclusion of occams razer.

    First remember we have 0 idea atm. So occams assumes the simplist explanation is correct.

    But over the past couple of decades. The number of planets we have identified has grown hugly.

    We only recently gained the ability to detect anything earth sized. But hav already found several.

    Evidence is indication that the number of potential planets that are capable of housing life is far from low. Even if we are taking one in a million planets able. Most scientists interested in the field now agree life existing somewhere is more likely then earth being unique for some reason.

    So complexity wise. Other life having evolved and developed radio. Is no more complex then some unknown answer. In fact the idea that it is impossible to be alian life is more complex then the idea that it is possible.

    Once we have more information. Things will likely change quickly. And I lack the optimism to claim its likely alians.

    But occams razer wise. We have evidence of life creating radio waves and transmitting them into space. As we do it a lot. Where as some totally unknown thing we have never seen up to now is a little more complex as a solution.



  • Not OP. But curios on the subject. I use debian bookworm with an older Nvidia 1050.

    I currently tend to use gnome. As I have multi res monitors. Mainly due to vision issues. 2x32inch 2k 1x28inch 4k and a 24inch 1k

    Dose any desktop allow stable fractional scaling for each monitor independently. Its been a good few years since I looked into it. But in the past it was unstable.



  • 1 up to you. Be careful with spending untill you know you will go further in the hobby. But if you take that advice. You’ll be in a very small group of hams. Most of us have bad buys.

    2 don’t. Not at this stage. Building an amplification circuit is way more complex then it looks.seperation and filtering of feed back in the system is a complex task not advised for a beginner. Sort of why projects don’t include it. It drastically limits the people able to take on the project. Honestly a 2nd external amplifier project. Or purchased amp. Would be a better goal with way less risk of harm to others.

    3 yes but other things then the house may be better. I use a 160m EFHW on my canal boat. With an adjustable unun 64/49/16/9:1 this and a mat auto tuner allow me to use all hf frequencies with low swr. I simply run a 10m pole off the side of the boat. And run the wire into the trees.

    Remember anything like this works. But it is still going to be a compromis. But that is true of most multi band antennas. They will be better at some bands then others.

    I’ll also warn you. What you describe is refered to as a random wire. But is not random. To work with a 9;1 unun it actually has to not match any frequency used. If it is close to half or quater wave on a frequency. It will need a much larger unun. Hence mine going to 64;1

    If you look online you will find recommended lengths. And a list of bands they will work on.

    But for portable work. I found the mixed unun ability much more flexible.


  • As gnome shell and ubuntu. Have nio such good faith agreement.

    And thisbis just a process ubuntu has to reduce its own work load.

    Who really cares. Ubuntu can include and reject any software they choose.

    Ubuntu users can also add and take what ever risks they choose.

    And gnomeshell can choose to change there releases and software as they choose.

    This os the cost of free as in speach software. If you are need 3rd parties to make your software work. You have to accept they have the same freedoms you insist on.

    Personally i prefer that and the option to use older versions if thing go wrong. Then a privrate for profit ccompany making the same choices with less freedom for me.


  • You can. Most things have gui options.

    But you quickly learn for somethings. The terminal is just easier.

    If you ignore odd stuff. Most everyday stuff to maintain the system is available in a controlled panal like program. It varies based on distribution and windows manager. But the basic setup is there for most things.

    Its when you want to do something creative it gets more complex. While most commands have gui apps. Most online guidance will just find the terminal an easy way to guide you.