Mine is basically a Beat Saber machine; it’s great.

Great for sport though, [email protected]

deleted by creator

Your Steam directory has a log (or logs?) sub-directory and that contains a vrcompositor.txt

You can create a post with link, image and content all at once.

The vrcompositor failed to initialise. Check the vrcompositor log in the Steam log files directory.

Non, merci

I’d expect extremely poor performance as Nvidia does not allow nouveau to reclock Pascal cards; you’d be stuck at the lowest clocks.

They probably confused it; 4k 240 and 5k 120 are about the same balpark according to handy dandy chart.

Read the article.

Could I pitch it as a money save vs building the parking?

Given how much underground parking costs to construct, that’s the argument with the most leverage I think.

I somehow doubt that a few shuttle buses a day are more expensive than underground construction amortised over a decades or two. Especially not if that company intends to grow. (Go ask them how much growth they want to see in the company and how many more underground parking garages they plan to build to match.)

Or that you’d open up opportunities for more worker applications?

They’d likely not care. There’s likely a “If you don’t want to earn it, you don’t deserve it.” mindset at the decision level here; if you don’t want to drive your car 2h every day to get here, you don’t deserve to work here.

Or that it would help traffic jams?

Given you said that they don’t GAF about the health of the community, I doubt they’d care about the community’s traffic jams.

Yes but I don’t see how that’s related to Wayland as nouveau (mesa OGL) is also capable of driving apps inside a modern desktop.

I don’t see what’s wrong with quoting the introduction.

Because the motivation is mostly a formality, not the actual contents of the paper.

literature reviews are more reliable than a single study, and the introduction is a mini literature review.

I’d generally agree but not if the paper they’re citing adds new information that (at least partially) invalidates/updates the literature.

If I wrote a paper that said in its introduction “It is generally believed that x is the cause for y. So and so have found weak evidence in [42] and someone else similarly weak evidence in [69]. Someone else still theorised the effect could be greater than assumed in [1337].” and then found out in the paper that x does not cause y at all.
Don’t you think it’d be disingenuous to quote the introduction and leave out all of the conclusions when talking about the effects of x?

To me, that’d be an obvious lie by omission.

In this case, it’s not quite as bad as the paper does not conclude the literal opposite of what was quoted but its conclusion is quite a bit more differentiated than the “TWP bad” of its motivation.

“Microplastics are of increasing concern in the environment [1, 2]. Tire wear is estimated to be one of the largest sources of microplastics entering the aquatic environment [3,4,5,6,7]. The mechanical abrasion of car tires by the road surface forms tire wear particles (TWP) [8] and/or tire and road wear particles (TRWP), consisting of a complex mixture of rubber, with both embedded asphalt and minerals from the pavement [9].”

https://microplastics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43591-021-00008-w

You quoted the introduction, not even their conclusions. That’s not how scientific papers work.

Your post amounts to mostly baseless fear mongering while ignoring the real data you actually link to:

(TWP = tire wear microplastic particles)

Results indicate that TWP occur in relatively high concentrations compared to microplastics in general and that the corresponding risk of TWP is above threshold levels. Because TWP exists both as anthropogenic particulates and as a source of a suite of chemicals, providing a risk assessment is challenging. This study provides a first risk assessment posed by particle effects (TWPMP) as well as risks posed by chemical effects (organic micropollutants). Additional research is required to further address the risks of TWP, e.g. toxicity testing for environmentally realistic TWP material and aligning exposure and effect data.

I interpret that as there are clear signs of it being an issue but further research is required to actually find out how big the issue actually is.

I tried to read the paper for more details but I’m not very well versed in risk assessment of substances, so I barely understood it.

Thanks for letting us know. Blocking you now since replying to you in a public forum would be a waste of time if you’re going to delete it immediately after.

Paperless for keeping track of text written on the dead trees which companies keep sending me instead of email.

Actualbudget for keeping track where the money goes.

will prevent shady recruiters from editing it

Well, it won’t prevent it but it will set a low technological bar that most muggles can’t seem to get past.

It does not directly affect wayland support in any way unless you’re using one of those experimental Wayland in Vulkan modes.

It does affect it indirectly insofar as that, with NVK, you’re able to use the nouveau kernel module which exposes standardised interfaces that Wayland relies on without losing the ability to do Vulkan which was not possible previously. If you wanted Vulkan previously, you had to use Nvidia’s proprietary driver and its non-standard interfaces that cause issues with Wayland.

USB is not really a reliable connector for storage purposes. I’d highly recommend against USB.

I tried signing my own keys. I replaced them in the bootloader, but when I do the final step to lock them down, the TPM chip flushes the new keys and reissues fresh keys again

It may just be that the firmware of your particular board is buggy to the point of being broken.

You could try updating it but sometimes it’s futile and the firmware is just the biggest pile of crap.

Indeed there are many times I “need my hand held” in order to take my first steps into a subject. I need an intellectually-intuitive foundation that is stable and I can build upon.

Absolutely reasonable expectation. I wish we had that.

why a user owned directory in root is needed

I initially glossed over the fact that you said “user-owned” here. It still shouldn’t affect anything because nothing uses /nix for anything security-critical at any point but it’d certainly be smelly.

User-owned /nix is only the case in single-user installs which I believe have been deprecated for a while and certainly aren’t the way to go anymore.

These days the preferred and default method is a multi-user install where /nix is owned by root there and exclusively managed by the privileged nix-daemon.

What it means for NIX in reference to configuration files, dot files, and my mental model of mess that belongs in /home/$user. While unfounded, I immediately worry root will somehow get cluttered with junk too. It is probably wrong, but I think of $user being largely sandboxed in /home/$user/

Nix (the package manager) itself does have some limited local state (cache, current profile link) that is put into the appropriate XDG user dirs. It will never touch anything outside of those specific state dirs, the TMPDIR and /nix.

Nix is designed to be fully contained in /nix. This property enables you to even wipe their entire root on every boot under NixOS.

Apps installed via Nix behave as they always do w.r.t. cluttering directories. openssh will still create and manage its ~/.ssh directory for instance, just like on other distros. If you ran some daemon that you installed via Nix with sufficient privileges, it may try to create its state directory in /var or whatever; just like the same daemon from any other distro’s package would.

That is all to say: Nix does not do anything special here. Its packages largely behave the same as they do on any other distro and that behaviour includes state directory cluttering behaviour at runtime.

I don’t know what the SELinux context is for NIX, but I only have a limited grasp of SELinux from hacking around on Android to add things like busybox, and I know it is permissive but enabled in Fedora.

No SELinux support whatsoever.
There is somewhat explicit non-support even as Nix’ model of files and directories does not include xattrs; you cannot produce a Nix store path that has special xattrs for SELinux purposes.
Metadata like permissions, dates and owner information are all normalised in the Nix store. The only permitted metadata apart from the file name is whether regular files can be executed.

If your system uses SELinux, you must add an explicit exception for the Nix store. (Installers may do that automatically these days, I haven’t kept up with that.)

question how anything placed directly in the root directory of another distro will impact future updates from the packagers of the distro.

Other distros simply do not touch /nix; it’s not their domain.

FHS distros control FHS directories such as /usr or /bin depending on what individual packages contain but no sane package of an FHS distro will try to control /nix/store/hugehash-whatever/.

Isn’t this against the Unix framework to place something directly in root?

Nix does many things that go against original design principles of Unix and that’s a good thing. It’s not the 70s anymore and some aspects of Unix have not aged well.

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2024/02/17/nixing-technological-lock-in/

trouble with Nvidia with a mainline kernel and kobold.

Using Nix for applications that have userspace driver dependencies on non-NixOS requires a hack unfortunately: https://github.com/nix-community/nixGL