amdgpu has a recovery mechanism built in that can be triggered using sudo cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/N/amdgpu_gpu_recover where N is the number of the DRI device in question. You could bind a shortcut to doing that I presume.
While these can help on other issues, these will do nothing if the driver has an unrecoverable issue.
I don't know shit about plural systems and have no idea about PluralKit but I can already forsee two issues that regular user accounts would have:
- There may be systems who switch operators frequently; having to switch between multiple accounts could be a major hurdle for fluent conversation
- Some systems may have too many operators to reasonably manage accounts for
As far as I understand it, PluralKit is more of a hack for acting as multiple pseudo-accounts with the convenience of a single (platform-) account. Given that Matrix, Element and the like are FOSS, it ought to be possible to build such a convenient single-"user" multi-account mechanisms into the clients or even protocol themselves rather than relying on hacky 3rd party add-ons.
Especially given that the user base of Matrix is far more likely to come into contact with plural systems than the general population is. (In the communities I frequent, I know of at least one and would not be surprised if there were quite a few more.)
The operating system is explicitly not virtualised with containers.
What you've described is closer to paravirtualisation where it's still a separate operating system in the guest but the hardware doesn't pretend to be physical anymore and is explicitly a software interface.
If you want to be anywhere near "reasonably anonymous" on the internet, you must use TOR browser.
A regular browser is so full of functionality and settings that make you stand out that using a VPN proxy or not hardly matters.
Google has massive swing; there's a whole industry around getting Google to prefer your low quality crap nobody wants to see over others' low quality crap nobody wants to see.
If Google has finally figured out a metric to measure "helpfulness" of a website and punishes unhelpful websites, a bunch of dogshit that would have otherwise gotten top spots may have been banished to page 2.
Reddit results would naturally creep up because of that (and therefore get a lot more clicks), even if they didn't change at all.
Somewhere inside that abstraction you’ll need to have the pieces of info that Spanish “leche” [milk] is feminine, that Zulu “ubisi” [milk] is class 11, that English predicative uses the ACC form, so goes on.
Of course you do. The beauty of abstraction is that these language-specific parts can be factored into generic language-specific components. The information you're actually trying to convey can be denoted without any language-specific parts or exceptions and that's the important part for Wikipedia's purpose of knowledge preservation and presentation.
you'll need people to mark a multitude of distinctions in their sentences, when writing them down, that the abstraction layer would demand for other languages. Such as tagging the "I" in "I see a boy" as "+masculine, +older-person, +informal" so Japanese correctly conveys it as "ore" instead of "boku", "atashi, "watashi" etc.
For writing a story or prose, I agree.
For the purpose of writing Wikipedia articles, this specifically and explicitly does not matter very much. Wikipedia strives to have one unified way of writing within a language. Whether the "I" is masculine or not would be a parameter that would be applied to all text equally (assuming I-narrator was the standard on Wikipedia).
Even the idea of "abstract concept of milk" doesn't work as well as it sounds like, because languages will split even the abstract concepts in different ways. For example, does the abstract concept associated with a living pig includes its flesh?
If your article talks about the concept of a living pig in some way and in the context of that article, it doesn't matter whether the flesh is included, then you simply use the default word/phrase that the language uses to convey the concept of a pig.
If it did matter, you'd explicitly describe the concept of "a living pig with its flesh" instead of the more generic concept of a living pig. If that happened to be the default of the target language or the target language didn't differentiate between the two concepts, both concepts would turn into the same terms in that specific language.
The same applies to your example of the different forms of "I" in Japanese. To create an appropriate Japanese "rendering" of an abstract sentence, you'd use the abstract concept of "a nerdy shy kid refers to itself" as the i.e. the subject. The Japanese language "renderer" would turn that into a sentence like ”僕は。。。” while the English "renderer" would simply produce "I ...".
A language is not an agent; it doesn't "do" something. You'd need people to actively insert those pieces of info for each language, that's perhaps doable for the most spoken ones, but those are the ones that would benefit the least from this.
Yes, of course they would have to do that. The cool thing is that this it'd only have to be done once in a generic manner and from that point on you could use that definition to "render" any abstract article into any language you like.
You must also keep in mind that this effort has to be measured relative to the alternatives. In this case, the alternative is to translate each and every article and all changes done to them into every available language. At the scale of Wikipedia, that is not an easy task and it's been made clear that that's simply not happening.
(Okay, another alternative would be to remain on the status quo with its divergent versions of what are supposed to be the same articles containing the same information.)
Languages simply don’t agree on how to split the usage of words. Or grammatical case. Or if, when and how to do agreement.
Just for the sake of example: how are they going to keep track of case in a way that doesn’t break Hindi, or Basque, or English, or Guarani? Or grammatical gender for a word like “milk”? (not even the Romance languages agree in it.) At a certain point, it gets simply easier to write the article in all those languages than to code something to make it for you.
I don't know what the WMF is planning here but what you're pointing out is precisely what abstraction would solve.
If you had an abstract way to represent a sentence, you would be independent of any one order or case or whatever other grammatical feature. In the end you obviously do need actual sentences with these features. To get these, you'd build a mechanism that would convert the abstract sentence representation into a concrete sentences for specific languages that is correctly constructed according to those specific languages' rules.
Same with gender. What you'd store would not be that e.g. some german sentence is talking about the feminine milk but rather that it's talking about the abstract concept of milk. How exactly that abstract concept is represented in words would then be up to individual languages to decide.
I have absolutely no idea whether what I'm talking about here would be practical to implement but it in theory it could work.
I was being unclear; I meant the optional suggested keybinding would be bound to virtual keys for common actions.
The goal of that is to rebind common actions globally. Without this, you'd have to change each application's individual "copy" action to your preferred shortcut. You'd do so in the OS rather than the app but you'd still have to do it for each app individually.
Alternatively, there could be a set of pre-defined common actions that applications would simply use rather than defining their own action. I think that's what you mean.
Which part of the path does not exist?
Is it the correct GPU number?