• 8 Posts
  • 823 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 11th, 2023
  • stembolts@programming.devtoiiiiiiitttttttttttt@lemmy.world•"Works on my machine".
    4·
    2 hours ago

    I’ll save noobies some time.

    for (( i=1; i<65536; i++ ));do  
  for (( j=1; j<256; i++ ));do  
    ssh -L $j$i:127.0.0.1:$i -N 192.168.1.$j &  
  done  
done

    What could go wrong?

    Okay clearly this won’t work because there aren’t enough local ports to match to 16 bits of ports on potentially 255 machines, but with some slight modification I could add in a test to only increment the local port if the forward is successful and thereby create the dumbest-ass port forwarding script ever.

  • stembolts@programming.devtoLinux@lemmy.ml•Is KDE actually good or it is overrated? Or I was just unlucky because of prebuilt distros?
    141·
    20 hours ago

    KDE Manjaro running on 4 or 5 of my machines, pure stability. It sounds like a hardware issue.

    Here are my suggestions to diagnose this.

    Option 1. Setup an ssh server, connect from a second computer (or phone via Termux), execute $journalctl -fe, and observe the journal from your second device when the crash occurs. That should help pinpoint the issue.

    Option 2. If you don’t have a second device, use a non-gui tty, access via Ctrl+Alt+F1. (Usually terminals are available F1 thru F6). Once again execute $journalctl -fe and observe it during the crash.

    Tbh option 2 may just be easier especially if you have minimal knowledge of ssh. Good luck, ping me back if you find this helpful and would like more perspective, and apologies if this doesn’t help you.

    If the entire computer crashes, boot into a terminal and browse journalctl history of previous boots, sorry I don’t have these commands off the top of my head but if you need them and ask I will get them for you.

  • stembolts@programming.devtoPeople Twitter@sh.itjust.works•Whoa
    5·
    2 days ago

    Disclaimer Edit: I realize there are some semantics between force, weight, mass, etc. The purpose of this post is not the rigor of the mathematics but the enjoy-ability of being able to abstract interesting measurements. Sorry if I made any mistakes physicists! Always open to corrections :)

    Of course we can weigh the earth. In your example the earth weighs nothing because you didn’t define a reference frame. Since earth is the usual reference frame we use to weigh objects, choosing the earth itself as an object to weigh does stretch our minds a bit, but we can do it.

    In order to weigh something, first we must understand what weight is expressing. Weight is the measure of the gravitational pull of an object A with mass M_a on a second object M_b summed with the gravitational pull of object B on A.

    Weight = G_a-on-b*M_b + G_b-on-a*M_a

    In our scenario, if A is the earth and B is a non-planetary-sized object, then the pull G_a-on-b is so much larger than G_b-on-a that we can set G_b-on-a to zero for convenience.

    Weight = G_a-on-b*M_b + 0

    However if we are weighing an earth-sized object we will not be able to do that ;-)

    Now, lets talk about the reference frame for this question.

    On earth, the weight of some object B is recorded in a reference frame 6,367km from the center of a 5.97E24 kg mass object (object A).

    With M(ass) and G(ravity) now defined, we can work toward W. G is easy since we are working with earth-like objects.

    Back to the question “how heavy is earth”. There is only one earth, so the answer is, “In what reference frame?” Without defining a reference frame, no conclusion of any significance can be drawn.

    If we want to weigh the earth in the reference frame of the surface of another earth, we would need two earths. Place a 5.97E24 mass object 6,367km from the center (radius of earth R=6.367E6m) of another 5.97E24 mass object, we will arbitrarily assign a diameter of 1,000km to each, this assignment has no bearing on the result since density is irrelevant in this context.

    Where G = 9.81m/s², and the weights/masses of object A wrt B and B wrt A are W_ab/M_a W_ba/M_b respectively. In this case, M_a and M_b have the same value so we’ll reduce to M.

    W_ab = G*M + G*M = 2GM

    …where M is the mass of earth and G is gravitational acceleration. Voila, our answer.

    I’ll leave you to do the math as that task is trivial.

    I digress.

    I must insist that the real question is what is the weight of a third object C (the husband of A) at a distance 8R (the distance from the bedroom door to the foot of AC’s bed) when it catches A and B (at relative distances R_ab=2Ra, assuming R_a=R_b) in AC’s bedroom when A said it was picking up their son D at a distance 2,700R (soccer practice) and B came home early from work to find them entangled in the passionate embrace of ecstasy when A told C they were too young to get married and have kids but they had a surprise pregnancy and did the best they could. Calculate the weight of C wrt AB and C wrt D assuming the positions of AB, C, and D form a straight line.

  • stembolts@programming.devtoFuturology@futurology.today•A three-year UBI study done in Germany shows that a guaranteed monthly check increased labor market exploration and increased work satisfaction.English
    10·
    3 days ago

    This is such a common gripe among non-scientists about science, and not only does it demonstrate 1. That you don’t understand the purpose of science, but also 2. that you’ve spent zero time attempting to understand why someone would want to study “obvious” things, because this complaint is so prevalent that numerous scientific communicators have put effort into explaining why this seemingly “common-sense” belief is actually counterproductive. So like, the answer you see is in front of your eyes. So then I ask, is this person making an effort to know or do they just want to complain and feel superior. Wanting to feel superior is very human, I can’t fault you for it, but consider spending some time trying to answer, “Why do scientists study obvious things?” next time, before deciding something is dumb.

    That aside and onto a different point, some of the most fascinating results of science have been researching “obvious/stupid” phenomenon and getting surprising results. But… as stated above, all of that information is out there and you seemingly evaded it all this time, so I’ll stop there. I hope you’ll use this as an opportunity to seek out information next time instead of spending your time to construct a complaint, the world is a much more enjoyable place when you approach it with curiousity instead of judgement.

    I wish you the best.