Hm, yeah ok, should really be careful with that “I trust the developers of this repo” button (or whatever it says)

Do you dd the device directly, and while it is running for this?

Which parts are OpenTelemetry for? Is Prometheus Agent, Prometheus Server and Grafana not enough?

Good thing you solved it, then it feels better to try and make this joke:

The reason it’s not working is because you are on the wrong network, that is nacho’ wifi.

Not sure, but I think emacs at least used to have a reputation as a resourse hog and bloated. So maybe that?

For everyone who has not already, this is so worth a read: https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html

Is this a diagram for how it should work? Not how it actually works? Like I put my stuff in the ~/.bashrc, mostly because I think the debian one says like “put your fun stuff below here” or something. The green and grey lines go through the ~/.bashrc, but both of them go through the “no login” bubble in the diagram. But I know my ~/.bashrc works, so the diagram is a suggestion?

At least a lot of Swedish parties had an anti-China message for the EU election. Those parties are also very anti-infrastructure, so idunno, maybe?

Resan till Melonia, which is a cartoon adaptation of The Tempest. In it, two evil capitalists happen upon the island Melonia, untainted by their greed. The inhabitants of Melonia travel to the capitalist society to save Melonia and all the children the capitalists have enslaved. You know, normal childrens’ cartoons :-)

I’m guessing this is a pun that people are missing?

This is how I handle code at work, almost. Program not working? Who has the last commit on the code? You get the question!

Come on! You need those red crosses to know it fails as it should. Thats what I would say they are there for :-)

Radicale? https://radicale.org/v3.html I have not used it much myself yet. Its very minimal and focused on calendar stuff.

Is either a replacement for the other?

No, it can be very important. As I answered in another comment, its called padding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padding_(cryptography). And to see that it is imortant say you encrypt your easy to remember password in an encrypted file. Now if your attack was possible, having your public key, you could just generate the passwords and encrypt them to figure out your password. Much easier than trying to find your key. Using forms of padding, that does not work.

Well, you use “padding” to solve those things. Like if you type “hello”, your implementation of the whole algorithm should do something like: take the string, add some random string that is tagged in some way, and then encrypt. At decryption, you get a string with some random stuff in it, but you filter the tag and return only the message. Like “hello” -> “[trash]kfkidkeb[/trash] hello”, add and remove the “[trash]” block, before encryption and after decryption, respectively

Well… And so can scalars, sure, like in string theory where scalar fields represent various kinds of aspects of geometry of the extra dimensions. But they are, also this scalar, dynamical fields (which the CC is not) and these fields would correspond to “particles”. You couple this field to all the other fields of the SM and you get interactions, you have particles. Its a particle.

This is why I know this is generally a problem, in string theory you have all these scalars that comes from compactification, you need to explain why they are not seen by experiments = make them heavy. Otherwise you get new particles, new forces, lots of physics that is not real.

Sure. In model building like this I would assume that you’d make the particle heavy to explain absence from experiments, or you’d make it couple in strange ways. Do the authors here do either? Higgs was hard to find because a little bit of both, dark matter is from the couplings entirely (no coupling to the SM). The scalar, I assume, is not dark matter (that is the claim here), so it must couple to SM so unless heavy it most likely should have shown up at LHC. It is a similar problem, but not the same. If it is the couplings and not the mass that should explain the absence then is there anything in the model that would give a hint to how it couples to anything in the SM? I doubt it, because this is basically pure GR work from what I understand, and not QFT. But, I don’t know, I’m just being sceptical here.

Well, guess what the Λ in ΛCDM is? They just put it in there to be able to fit the theory to the observation. And it’s absurd to say, that they would’ve found that in the LHC, when they also did not find dark matter particles, even though they are actively looking for those.

Kind of, but also not really. It is a bit different to add a CC which we can implicitly measure the size and equation of state of instead of adding a scalar which we observationally only have a lower bound on the mass on (from not being found in LHC). If their fit makes the mass very high, then they are fine is all I’m saying. The CC and dark matter are different, so yeah, it… would be strange to ask to find the CC att LHC because it did not find dark matter…? What?

It’s quite common for research groups to do this, because their work is quite complex and takes time. They proved that their approach might have some merit and now other groups can help them going forward with it.

Absolutely. This is perfectly fine. I’m just saying with how far this direction has come right now, I’m not convinced, but that shouldn’t mean much :-)

Just some superquick thoughts…

Regarding “TL” from wikipedia:

Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and remains a fringe topic in astrophysics.[4]

It is not very reliable to use a component to build a model that has “no support from observations”. This is a theoretical result, I don’t mind them doing this work, one needs to do these things to understand the various aspects of a problem.

From one of Gutas papers, re. “CCC” (I think they are referencing the “CCC” here at least):

A scalar-tensor theory of gravity is considered […]

Yeah, it is not generally a good idea to just throw in more components, like here a scalar. I’m guessing it cannot be the inflaton, since it is has to matter for late-time cosmology, so they either have to explain why this scalar has not been found by the LHC or that it is the Higgs. Maybe they do?

The paper linked in the article is also about fitting some cosmological data. Does it still explain galaxy rotations? What about other cosmological data, like equation of state parameter and such?

I’d say this is very teoretical work, on some quite unstable legs. I would not throw out the ΛCDM+dark matter just yet.