And only LiveJournal is untouched by time

It worked!

Thank you a lot. Now it works properly, and inxi outputs nvidia driver.

Marking as solved.

I had some Arch derivatives (Endeavour, Manjaro) on this very computer and everything was smooth. Had some pains with Fedora, but it worked as well.

sudo modprobe nvidia gives the following output: modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'nvidia': No such device

dmesg gives the following:

[ 56.697148] [   T2989] NVRM: The NVIDIA GPU 0000:27:00.0 (PCI ID: 10de:1c03)
                          NVRM: installed in this system is not supported by open
                          NVRM: nvidia.ko because it does not include the required GPU
                          NVRM: System Processor (GSP).
                          NVRM: Please see the 'Open Linux Kernel Modules' and 'GSP
                          NVRM: Firmware' sections in the driver README, available on
                          NVRM: the Linux graphics driver download page at
                          NVRM: www.nvidia.com.
[   56.702043] [   T2989] nvidia 0000:27:00.0: probe with driver nvidia failed with error -1
[   56.702102] [   T2989] NVRM: The NVIDIA probe routine failed for 1 device(s).
[   56.702104] [   T2989] NVRM: None of the NVIDIA devices were initialized.
[   56.702837] [   T2989] nvidia-nvlink: Unregistered Nvlink Core, major device number 238

Guess it won’t work with my card? Gonna read through that (quite massive) readme, it seems…

P.S. Looks like everything pre-Turing does not support open drivers, and OpenSUSE did not communicate it well. Looking into ways to install proprietary driver.

P.P.S. Wait, it gets worse! The main way to install the proprietary driver is through install-new-recommends, BUT this installs open drivers on unsupported cards! This may be a good reason for a bug report once I figure the rest out.

I still don’t quite get why planes are somehow the exception - likely because something about engineering and use of real planes makes inverted Y preferable, or that joysticks as opposed to mouse/keyboard make inverted Y a bit more tangible? I don’t find the inversion intuitive in any game-related context, at least as a mouse/keyboard/gamepad user.

Up is up, down is down, simple as that. I just piloted a spaceplane in Space Engineers after piloting a dragon in World of Warcraft and both games just have up on up and down on down. To me, this is how it should be, or at least there should always be an option to make it so.

For any casual play, it just adds to a consistent and predictable experience.

But then again, I might be biased because inverted Y just doesn’t click with me, no matter how much I challenged myself to figure it out. Automatic reactions always lead me the wrong way.

To be clear, the picture is taken from the ISS, and is upside down from our normal perspective. The red part is actually on top of this thing.

I’m just completely unable to learn inverted Y.

Any game that doesn’t have an option to make it regular is unplayable for me. Oh, and sadly IRL radio controlled planes are too. I tried two, and both got smacked into the ground and needed repairs.

I can comprehend it when both axis are inverted, but when it’s only one, it doesn’t click.

Wow, that’s an interesting way

It it would be a lever behind, X axis would be inverted too.

Y inversion is just terrible and has no good explanation in relation to non-piloting games (and even there most people would be better off with regular Y)

You’re a monster

Flying games should have an option to choose regular or inverted.

If you’re into piloting, got a joystick or something - sure, inverted is your choice.

Otherwise it’s just unnecessarily confusing.

I think it refers to the delivery of mRNA inside the cells.

Except mRNA does not persist and thereby cannot be seen as a genetic alteration.

It is, which is why I said “related” as a hedge - and also mentioned that you don’t have to be any kind of biologist if you just listened to your biology classes back in the day.

Basic education is enough to understand, in general terms, how it works.

On my end, as a microbiologist, I had extensive training on viruses and the way most of them work is very similar. I can confirm that the vaccine doesn’t do anything SARS-CoV-2 itself wouldn’t.

So, what makes you skeptical of these vaccines? Or are you trolling around?

I’m sorry if my assumption was wrong - it was simply written in a way that reminds of how LLMs get to write the texts.

In any case, thank you for the discussion! It was interesting indeed, though it could be held eternally - and we still have limited time in here to make it special.

Because I studied well at school (which is enough as a prerequisite), and also happen to have a major in microbiology, which is related to what we’re talking about.

If there are things in particular that you are skeptical about, let me know.

The fact that this is a real IT question and not a culinary review is hilarious

Even better that one of the responding comments is written by Barbecue Cowboy

And in case someone hacks into your Jellyfin, what exactly would they do with it? Watch movies? :D

Contextual answers come from the shared experience that got interpreted in a similar manner.

In your Jeff example, I imagined a car. As such, it was not conveyed to me that it was the train, because we have different experiences in modes of transportation mentioned by default. Your neurons reconstructed one thing, mine did the other.

How does energy exist in a world without matter? Immediate questions arise: what does it relate to? Can it be measured? How does it show itself? How do we know it’s there if there’s no matter for it to act upon? How did it form?

And God - there’s no good reason to believe He exists in the first place. Being lost in the woods of the so-called “immaterial” doesn’t bring Him an inch closer to being material and real. What is material does not need you to believe in anything; it just is.

You may believe that the wall is there, or you may not, but if it’s there, you won’t be able to walk through it like it doesn’t exist. And for all we know, no one has managed to produce something objective solely out of their perception or beliefs.

As per the last paragraph - it made me wonder if I’m talking to an LLM. In which case - good job! but please, keep it somewhere else.

Yes, because we knew no better. Now we can be more precise and replicate specifically the parts immune system can recognize that are not harmful to us. If anything, we made vaccines safer than they were before.

It’s like saying solar panels are technobabble because we once gathered nearly all energy by burning wood or coal. Sure, we did, but why do it now? We know better options.

Besides, it takes school-level knowledge of biology to understand the reasoning behind these vaccines. They rely on the knowledge we had for many decades now; it was only hard to produce such RNA sequences at scale and to meet all the standards while doing so. Now we can do this, and it makes no sense to do otherwise.

Traditional vaccines are more dangerous and, at their best, just as efficient. Besides, they typically take longer to develop and test, and time was a pressing issue. Some traditional-style vaccines got eventually rolled out, but they did not outperform the alternatives, and so they didn’t gain much traction.

So, overall, the biggest and most pressing issue with mRNA/vector-based vaccines is lack of literacy among the people who fear it.