Talk:1678: Recent Searches - Revision history

172.68.186.42 at 21:35, 28 March 2025

2025-03-28T21:35:24Z

172.70.86.133 at 21:30, 28 March 2025

2025-03-28T21:30:44Z

172.69.195.54 at 21:28, 28 March 2025

2025-03-28T21:28:40Z

172.69.79.164: Question about word

2025-03-28T20:55:29Z

Question about word

Unreliable Connection at 06:14, 9 April 2023

2023-04-09T06:14:17Z

Sqrt-1: red link template

2021-05-16T10:05:49Z

red link template

172.68.154.88 at 18:10, 24 October 2019

2019-10-24T18:10:22Z

Ianrbibtitlht at 17:08, 4 June 2017

2017-06-04T17:08:23Z

Ianrbibtitlht: Alternate explanation for "Google docs from bootloader"

2017-06-04T17:02:48Z

Alternate explanation for "Google docs from bootloader"

141.101.80.33: explain why fsck a mounted fs is bad

2016-09-24T21:22:50Z

explain why fsck a mounted fs is bad

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 28 March 2025
Line 122:		Line 122:
	[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164\|172.69.79.164]] 20:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164\|172.69.79.164]] 20:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
	:Different meanings. I take the original "paramount" as being the sense "of the highest importance" ("...to any kind of thing in the general crontab/scheduler group"), whereas the use of "tantamount" is saying it is "equivalent" ("...to a scheduler"; thus stating that a crontab thing is very like one of these, but not the same). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54\|172.69.195.54]] 21:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)		:Different meanings. I take the original "paramount" as being the sense "of the highest importance" ("...to any kind of thing in the general crontab/scheduler group"), whereas the use of "tantamount" is saying it is "equivalent" ("...to a scheduler"; thus stating that a crontab thing is very like one of these, but not the same). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54\|172.69.195.54]] 21:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
		+	:...although, goinbg back and reading the fuller sense and context, I now believe that ''neither'' of the words apply properly. Could do with further rewriting in the surrounding text, ''and'' rotate around yet another word (at this point) altogether. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.42\|172.68.186.42]] 21:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 In the following sentence, shouldn't it be tantamount?  Paramount doesn't make much sense to me: "A job that updates the crontab (therefore creating new jobs, removing old ones or editing existing ones) is paramount to a job scheduler"
 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 20:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
-:Different meanings. I take the original "paramount" as being the sense "of the highest importance" ("...to any kind of thing in the general crontab/scheduler group"), whereas the use of "tantamount" is saying it is "equivalent" ("...to a scheduler"; thus stating that a crontab thing is very like one of thise, but not the same). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 21:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
+:Different meanings. I take the original "paramount" as being the sense "of the highest importance" ("...to any kind of thing in the general crontab/scheduler group"), whereas the use of "tantamount" is saying it is "equivalent" ("...to a scheduler"; thus stating that a crontab thing is very like one of these, but not the same). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 21:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 28 March 2025
Line 121:		Line 121:
	In the following sentence, shouldn't it be tantamount? Paramount doesn't make much sense to me: "A job that updates the crontab (therefore creating new jobs, removing old ones or editing existing ones) is paramount to a job scheduler"		In the following sentence, shouldn't it be tantamount? Paramount doesn't make much sense to me: "A job that updates the crontab (therefore creating new jobs, removing old ones or editing existing ones) is paramount to a job scheduler"
	[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164\|172.69.79.164]] 20:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164\|172.69.79.164]] 20:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
		+	:Different meanings. I take the original "paramount" as being the sense "of the highest importance" ("...to any kind of thing in the general crontab/scheduler group"), whereas the use of "tantamount" is saying it is "equivalent" ("...to a scheduler"; thus stating that a crontab thing is very like one of thise, but not the same). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54\|172.69.195.54]] 21:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 28 March 2025
Line 117:		Line 117:

	The "autoexec" may be used to force others to follow the user. I'm not certain. [[User:Unreliable Connection\|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection\|talk]]) 06:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)		The "autoexec" may be used to force others to follow the user. I'm not certain. [[User:Unreliable Connection\|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection\|talk]]) 06:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	;Paramount -> tantamount?
		+	In the following sentence, shouldn't it be tantamount? Paramount doesn't make much sense to me: "A job that updates the crontab (therefore creating new jobs, removing old ones or editing existing ones) is paramount to a job scheduler"
		+	[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164\|172.69.79.164]] 20:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 9 April 2023
Line 115:		Line 115:

	Here is a link to font names "recursive": https://www.recursive.design/ [[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.88\|172.68.154.88]] 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)		Here is a link to font names "recursive": https://www.recursive.design/ [[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.88\|172.68.154.88]] 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	The "autoexec" may be used to force others to follow the user. I'm not certain. [[User:Unreliable Connection\|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection\|talk]]) 06:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 ::As long as you are not trying to run the fsck on ROOT filesystem (or /home, or anything other currently mounted), it doesn't matter if it's chrome extension. But it's true that usually fsck is run as part of system boot, when no filesystem is mounted in read/write mode, and it is not possible to run Chrome in such situation. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
-: [Extended explanation] Information about files often occur in multiple places on the disk. This redundancy increase the chance of repairing a corrupt file system. Fsck will read data from the disk, and if it finds inconsistencies, write new corrected data back. When a file system is mounted, a file system driver will read and write data of the disk in normal operation. If the two processes are simultaneous and unaware of each other, they may be confused and even create inconsistencies that wasn't there to begin with. E.g. {{original research}}: A file system driver may have cached data in working memory. If fsck updates that data on disk, the cache will be out of sync. The file system driver may be confused by this, or, if it writes back the cache to the disk, the fsck fix will be undone, and possibly a new different inconsistency would be created. Or, while fsck is comparing different parts of the file system, it will read one block at one point in time and another block at another point in time. At a time in between, normal operation may have created, changed or removed a file. Fsck then may think it has found an inconsistency (that does not exists) and try to fix it, possibly creating an inconsistency. Therefor, the fsck command will detect if a file system is mounted and issue a really scary warning against proceeding. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.33|141.101.80.33]] 21:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
+: [Extended explanation] Information about files often occur in multiple places on the disk. This redundancy increase the chance of repairing a corrupt file system. Fsck will read data from the disk, and if it finds inconsistencies, write new corrected data back. When a file system is mounted, a file system driver will read and write data of the disk in normal operation. If the two processes are simultaneous and unaware of each other, they may be confused and even create inconsistencies that wasn't there to begin with. E.g. original research: A file system driver may have cached data in working memory. If fsck updates that data on disk, the cache will be out of sync. The file system driver may be confused by this, or, if it writes back the cache to the disk, the fsck fix will be undone, and possibly a new different inconsistency would be created. Or, while fsck is comparing different parts of the file system, it will read one block at one point in time and another block at another point in time. At a time in between, normal operation may have created, changed or removed a file. Fsck then may think it has found an inconsistency (that does not exists) and try to fix it, possibly creating an inconsistency. Therefor, the fsck command will detect if a file system is mounted and issue a really scary warning against proceeding. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.33|141.101.80.33]] 21:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 ;Predictable touchpad

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:10, 24 October 2019
Line 111:		Line 111:

	: I see now that the text within the comic is all upper case, but the thought is still valid. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 17:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)		: I see now that the text within the comic is all upper case, but the thought is still valid. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 17:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+
		+	Here is a link to font names "recursive": https://www.recursive.design/ [[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.88\|172.68.154.88]] 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 4 June 2017
Line 109:		Line 109:

	I might be wrong, but I think the explanation for "Google docs from bootloader" is missing the point entirely - I believe this is not referring to the application from Google but instead means having the bootloader access Google document files (note that "docs" is lower case here) in order to somehow control or modify the bootloader behavior. These document files might be created and maintained through Google Docs (the application) and then accessed from within the bootloader later. While this may be technically infeasible and extremely unwise for a variety of reasons, if it could be done, it would fit the subject of this comic perfectly - the result would be the potential for severe bootup problems! --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)		I might be wrong, but I think the explanation for "Google docs from bootloader" is missing the point entirely - I believe this is not referring to the application from Google but instead means having the bootloader access Google document files (note that "docs" is lower case here) in order to somehow control or modify the bootloader behavior. These document files might be created and maintained through Google Docs (the application) and then accessed from within the bootloader later. While this may be technically infeasible and extremely unwise for a variety of reasons, if it could be done, it would fit the subject of this comic perfectly - the result would be the potential for severe bootup problems! --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I see now that the text within the comic is all upper case, but the thought is still valid. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 17:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 4 June 2017
Line 107:		Line 107:
	maybe it's just me, but does google actually do this any more? it certainly used to. now all i get is nothing until i start typing, when i get a list of the most popular results for other people's searches. if you have to turn javascript (or something else) off to see this, maybe it should be mentioned. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84\|141.101.98.84]] 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)		maybe it's just me, but does google actually do this any more? it certainly used to. now all i get is nothing until i start typing, when i get a list of the most popular results for other people's searches. if you have to turn javascript (or something else) off to see this, maybe it should be mentioned. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84\|141.101.98.84]] 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
	:still having problems with this. i think i understand the joke, but the comic seems to rely on something which i'm pretty sure doesn't happen. i'm old enough to remember when google would allow the default browser behaviour for textboxes, which is to cache the values you entered in this box and display them to you as a dropdown when you started typing. pressing alt-down would open the list unfiltered and unsorted. this is, i'm guessing, what randall is alluding to. which means that the list is hist search history in google. which makes the text of the joke funny. unfortunately google doesn't do this any more. i've tried it in chrome, firefox, ie and edge and it just doesn't, even if i'm logged in as me. alt-down has no effect. if you start typing it does open a dropdown to autocomplete, but from very scant research this isn't in any way tailored to the user. it just gives you the most popular searches that complete the text you type, with no regard for your search history. i could be wrong about that. if i am, and google does tailor it to your particular search history, then that does make the joke funny again. since not only does randall search for these things enough that google noticed that he likes them (possibly because this is all he searches for) but people search for these ridiculous things enough that google thinks that they are popular. which, even if true is a little remote a possibility. and undermines the joke about randall being special in breaking his computer. maybe i'm overthinking it. or not. did i miss something obvious? this is supposed to explain the comics and i need a little help. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84\|141.101.98.84]] 12:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)		:still having problems with this. i think i understand the joke, but the comic seems to rely on something which i'm pretty sure doesn't happen. i'm old enough to remember when google would allow the default browser behaviour for textboxes, which is to cache the values you entered in this box and display them to you as a dropdown when you started typing. pressing alt-down would open the list unfiltered and unsorted. this is, i'm guessing, what randall is alluding to. which means that the list is hist search history in google. which makes the text of the joke funny. unfortunately google doesn't do this any more. i've tried it in chrome, firefox, ie and edge and it just doesn't, even if i'm logged in as me. alt-down has no effect. if you start typing it does open a dropdown to autocomplete, but from very scant research this isn't in any way tailored to the user. it just gives you the most popular searches that complete the text you type, with no regard for your search history. i could be wrong about that. if i am, and google does tailor it to your particular search history, then that does make the joke funny again. since not only does randall search for these things enough that google noticed that he likes them (possibly because this is all he searches for) but people search for these ridiculous things enough that google thinks that they are popular. which, even if true is a little remote a possibility. and undermines the joke about randall being special in breaking his computer. maybe i'm overthinking it. or not. did i miss something obvious? this is supposed to explain the comics and i need a little help. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84\|141.101.98.84]] 12:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	I might be wrong, but I think the explanation for "Google docs from bootloader" is missing the point entirely - I believe this is not referring to the application from Google but instead means having the bootloader access Google document files (note that "docs" is lower case here) in order to somehow control or modify the bootloader behavior. These document files might be created and maintained through Google Docs (the application) and then accessed from within the bootloader later. While this may be technically infeasible and extremely unwise for a variety of reasons, if it could be done, it would fit the subject of this comic perfectly - the result would be the potential for severe bootup problems! --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 24 September 2016
Line 68:		Line 68:

	::As long as you are not trying to run the fsck on ROOT filesystem (or /home, or anything other currently mounted), it doesn't matter if it's chrome extension. But it's true that usually fsck is run as part of system boot, when no filesystem is mounted in read/write mode, and it is not possible to run Chrome in such situation. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)		::As long as you are not trying to run the fsck on ROOT filesystem (or /home, or anything other currently mounted), it doesn't matter if it's chrome extension. But it's true that usually fsck is run as part of system boot, when no filesystem is mounted in read/write mode, and it is not possible to run Chrome in such situation. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	: [Extended explanation] Information about files often occur in multiple places on the disk. This redundancy increase the chance of repairing a corrupt file system. Fsck will read data from the disk, and if it finds inconsistencies, write new corrected data back. When a file system is mounted, a file system driver will read and write data of the disk in normal operation. If the two processes are simultaneous and unaware of each other, they may be confused and even create inconsistencies that wasn't there to begin with. E.g. {{original research}}: A file system driver may have cached data in working memory. If fsck updates that data on disk, the cache will be out of sync. The file system driver may be confused by this, or, if it writes back the cache to the disk, the fsck fix will be undone, and possibly a new different inconsistency would be created. Or, while fsck is comparing different parts of the file system, it will read one block at one point in time and another block at another point in time. At a time in between, normal operation may have created, changed or removed a file. Fsck then may think it has found an inconsistency (that does not exists) and try to fix it, possibly creating an inconsistency. Therefor, the fsck command will detect if a file system is mounted and issue a really scary warning against proceeding. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.33\|141.101.80.33]] 21:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

	;Predictable touchpad		;Predictable touchpad