• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • They should last indefinitely so long as the process of accretion which created these nodules keeps going. A battery becomes drained when the chemical interaction between the two metals uses up all the available metal, which happens quite fast in our modern batteries because we’ve designed them that way.

    We’ve made them powerful and cheap by using relatively small amounts of each metal, spread thin and sandwiched together. The downside is that those things films of metal get used up fast.

    These nodules, meanwhile, are lumps of metal. They won’t produce lots of power all at once, but they can generate small amounts for ages, and so long as they grow faster than the metal gets used up (it doesn’t actually go anywhere, it just changes chemically) they’ll keep going


  • I know that for two reasons: first, we already know that oxygen concentration in the deep ocean is generally pretty low compared to the surface, and second we can already account for the general composition of our atmosphere. There just isn’t a big chunk of mystery oxygen who’s source we can’t identify.

    While it’s not impossible that we’re mistaken and a bunch of it is coming from somewhere other than where we expect, it’s sufficiently unlikely that I’m comfortable making such statements I told and unless presented with evidence to the contrary.


  • The article is being pretty hyperbolic. There’s no mystery here, this is just something which happens if you put two different metals together. It’s nothing more or less than a crude battery, just like the ancestors of the AA battery the article kept harping on about.

    This discovery could be important for people studying the climate on very early Earth, people studying early life, and the ecology of the deep sea today.

    That last one is particularly troubling, though. If this is widespread, then this might be a major source of what little oxygen is down there. If so, then taking those nodules away (like a lot of people are keen to do, since some of the metals they’re made of are valuable) could destroy an entire ecosystem.

    More research is required











  • MartianSands@sh.itjust.workstolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldsystemdeez nuts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The default is as long as it is because most people value not losing data, or avoiding corruption, or generally preserving the proper functioning of software on their machine, over 90 seconds during which they could simply walk away.

    Especially when those 90 seconds only even come up when something isn’t right.

    If you feel that strongly that you’d rather let something malfunction, then you’re entirely at liberty to change the configuration. You don’t have to accept the design decisions of the package maintainers if you really want to do something differently.

    Also, if you’re that set against investigating why your system isn’t behaving the way you expect, then what the hell are you doing running arch? Half the point of that distro is that you get the bleeding edge of everything, and you’re expected to maintain your own damn system


  • The question you should be asking is what’s wrong with that job which is causing it to run for long enough that the timeout has to kill it.

    Systemd isn’t the problem here, all it’s doing is making it easy to find out what process is slowing down your shutdown, and making sure it doesn’t stall forever



  • What they’re suggesting is to back up the whole disk, rather than any single partition. Anything you do to the partition to try and recover it has the potential to make a rescuable situation hopeless. If you have a copy of the exact state of every single bit on the drive, then you can try and fix it safe in the knowledge that you can always get back to exactly where you are now if you make it worse


  • It depends on what exactly gets cut or punctured, of course, but my understanding is that without proper surgical intervention it can be an exceptionally slow and painful way to die.

    The organs in the gut are mostly intestines. You’re not going to die just because they’ve spilled out, but you’re going to be bleeding pretty badly and if whatever caused them to spill out is still around then you’re pretty screwed.

    The bigger problem is that it’s unlikely they’ve just spilled out, they’re probably also sliced open. Now you’re in serious trouble, because there’s lots of blood in there so now you’re bleeding really badly. You’ve also got blood and the content of your digestives system mixing together, and that means some very nasty bacteria which are normally safely contained now have access to your blood.

    I suspect the most likely dangerous situation is a stab wound. In that case you’ll probably experience internal bleeding. There are no shortage of places for blood to go inside your body around there, including into your digestive system. I don’t think there’s anything much to stop blood from flowing endlessly into there, and you could bleed to death even if the external wound doesn’t look like it’s bleeding all that badly.

    In summary, getting stabbed in the gut will contaminate your blood and lead to potentially endless bleeding which can’t be treated with bandages because it’s inside. Even if you avoid bleeding to death, you’re probably going to die from a massive infection