I’ll post some links, but it’s a pretty busy week for me already, so give me some time.

An interrupt is an input that can be triggered to interrupt normal execution. It is used for e. g. hardware devices to signal the processor something has happened that requires timely processing, so that real-time behavior can be achieved (for variable definitions of real-time). Interrupts can also be triggered by software, and this explanation is a gross oversimplification, but that information is what is most likely relevant and interesting for your case at this point.

The commands you posted will sort the interrupts and output the one with the highest count (via head -1), thereby determining the interrupt that gets triggered the most. It will then disable that interrupt via the user-space interface to the ACPI interrupts.

One of the goals of ACPI is to provide a kind of general hardware abstraction without knowing the particular details about each and every hardware device. This is facilitated by offering (among other things), general purpose events - GPEs. One of these GPEs is being triggered a lot, and the processing of that interrupt is what causes your CPU spikes.

The changes you made will not persist after a reboot.

Since this is handled by kworker, you could try and investigate further via the workqueue tools: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/workqueue

In general, Linux will detect if excessive GPEs are generated (look for the term “GPE storm” in your kernel log) and stop handling the interrupts by switching to polling. If that happens, or if the interrupts are manually disabled, the system might not react to certain events in a timely manner. What that means for each particular case depends on what the interrupts are being responsible for - hard to tell without additional details.

It’s not like Bluetooth started demanding location permissions, the conceptual model of the permission was revised: having access Bluetooth means an app could determine your location via a form of lateration.

In earlier versions of smartphone operating systems, this was not transparent to users lacking the technical background, so Bluetooth also requiring location access is actually an attempt at making users aware of that. I’m not an iOS developer, so I can’t comment on iPhones, but on Android versions prior to 11, having access to Bluetooth meant an app would be able to determine your location.

Today, you can require the permission ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, which expresses that your app might use Bluetooth to obtain location information on Android. Also, if you’re just scanning for nearby devices to connect your app to, but don’t want users to be confused why your smart fridge app needs to know your precise location, you can declare a permission flag (neverForLocation) and Android will strip beacon information from the scan results, better asserting your intentions.

So, overall: no, there is nothing nefarious going on, it was always possible to determine your location via Bluetooth, and the update to the permission model was an honest improvement that actually benefits you as user.

Now, there are still plenty of shady apps around, and apps that are poorly written - don’t use those.

I shudder to think OP’s post was written by an actual person…

What’s a good way to financially support artists directly, without involving shady corporations, and without resorting to piracy?

I share all those opinions, so your rant saved me some potential typing in the future.

On the 8 Pro, the bump is recessed relative to the Otterbox case (given the “tough” Otterbox model for the 8 Pro, no idea what it’s called)

Do you use the phone without a protective case? I find that most cases are designed so that the bump is flush with the back of the case.

That being said, I prefer thicker cases like the Otterbox oder Spigen Tough whatever series, so I could see how such a case would be “too much” for someone.

No idea where you’d like to use live captions, but n maybe this helps:

https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions

I think you’re falling into a bit of a trap here: perfect is the enemy of good. Not everything has to be automated, instead of growing pains, there can also be gains.

Remember, we are currently aiming to get these vehicles on the road, alongside regular drivers. They use sensors and computer vision to read street signs, detect people etc., all with the reaction speed of a machine. What if the in-between product is simply a better driver with faster reaction times? That is the current goal, really - no one wants to automate everything, simply because that wouldn’t be feasible anytime soon.

Yes, again, we’re not there yet and these things are far from perfect. But let’s first just aim to get them good enough, and then maybe just a little better than your average driver.

As for the your proposed business model: we have capable drivers now, why do these business models don’t exist right now? Why is there no fast lane that allows me pay to get to my destination faster? What would the technology of driverless cars introduce that would enable these regulations?

It’s not about everything being automated. We also have to differentiate between early incarnations of autonomous vehicles and the desired, final state.

A manual override will of course be part of early models for the foreseeable future, but the overall goal is for the machine to make better decisions than a human could.

I don’t have any quarrel with life or death decisions being made by a machine if they have been made according to the morals and ethics of the people who designed the machine, and with the objective data that was available to the system at the time, which is often better than what would be available to a human in the same situation.

It’s the interpretation of said data that is still not fully there yet, and we humans will have to come to terms with the fact that a machine might indeed kill another human being in a situation where acting any different might cause more harm.

I don’t subscribe to the notion that a machine’s decision is always worth less than the decision of another entity participating in the same situation, just because it so happens that the second entity happens to be a human being.

Yes, you probably are. Please don’t forget that the current available technology constantly improves, and that we actually don’t see any good examples of self - driving cars that much - the most prominent displays are from Tesla, and they arguably build the worst cars we’ve seen since Ford came up with the assembly line.

The technology used in autonomous vehicles, e. g. sensors, have been used in safety critical application for decades in other contexts, and a machine is capable of completely different reaction times. Also, if autonomous vehicles cooperate in traffic sticking to their programmed behavior, observing traffic rules etc., you will get less reckless driving, with traffic flow becoming more deterministic. These benefits will particularly increase once self-driving cars don’t have to share the road with human drivers.

I would always trust a well-engineered, self-driving car more than one driven by a human.

Disclaimer: I used to work on these things in a research lab. Also, we’re not quite there yet, so please have a little patience.

Hey, much appreciated!

Is anyone speaking Chinese able to tell me what the guy in the first scene of the video is crying out? The one where the rocket falls horizontally. I mean, I have a general idea what is being said there conceptually, but I’d love to get an actual, accurate translation.

I am on my 4th personal TUXEDO laptop, never had any issues. I actually started giving them to the devs at my company, no complaints so far.

They don’t offer my choice of OS, and I wouldn’t use a preinstalled OS anyway, so I can’t comment on that.

Generally all correct, here is a resource with a lot of in-depth information and additional links:

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-808-how-to-prolong-lithium-based-batteries

It’s not true that precision measurements are impossible with low value resistors, a lot of measurement equipment works exactly like that - it might just be more expensive than what the manufacturer is willing to budget for.

Tuxedo also offers products with an aluminum body, and while they do import the hardware from China, you get the local service and warranty guarantees any company in the EU must provide, so that’s fine by me.

Also, honest question: what do you think a unique laptop is, in particular when buying from a mass consumer brand like Lenovo? I really can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean.

Handwriting hurts my wrists. My handwriting became super sloppy after what, like 40 years in front of a screen. Can’t index or search my notes. I had one of those pens that record everything using a camera on special, dotted paper, but no OCR can process my writing, and you need special paper.

But yeah, the idea seems interesting. I like dedicated devices these days. It have to carefully think about what I’ll be doing, pick an activity and then venture out to do the thing, packing the dedicated device that is suited for the task. I’m more focused that way, more productive.

However, that device here is not what I am looking for. Tiny keyboard, non ergonomic, colors too flashy.

lspci will read the vendor and device id via PCI and use that to determine what the device is. You might want to make the output a bit more digestable / useful via lspci -s 03:00.0 -k -nn, but I’d assume the ids that match an 2070 will show up.

Could you please take the card out and provide us with a few pictures from different angles, maybe getting a good look at the actual chips?

I’d like to rule that out before chasing rabbits here.

Also, you could always run nvidia-settings, which will show information about an NVIDIA card using a different access method.

I’d still like to see the pictures of the card though ;)