Is there a way to get the file manager Files (Nautilus?) and other applications under Ubuntu to display the date and time in standard ISO 8601 format, instead of the &quot;comfortable&quot; style, like &quot;Yesterday 09:39&quot;. I haven't been able to find an option anywhere to display date/time in ISO 8601 format in Files.  For example, right-clicking on the &quot;Modified (date)&quot; field in Files produces nothing useful in this regard, and trying Ubuntu Settings -&gt; Date&amp;Time gives me no choice at all for the date format. Added -- And there is now nothing in Nautilus Permissions that allows a change of date format. Shouldn't ISO 8601 be the standard for all applications under Ubuntu, and those users who don't want it should have to set their own option, somewhere? Using Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS.
The list view of Nautilus 3.6 shows the dates files were modified in a variety of ways: the hour and minute if modified on the current day, and the month and day if modified during the current year, and the year tacked on if modified during a previous year. I would like to see the entire date and time consistently on all the files (e.g.: Sat 20 Apr 2012 01:28:34 PM EDT).  I had this set up before, but I can't figure out how to do so with version 3.6. I did find this question, but the answers no longer apply to Nautilus 3.6:   How can I do so in Nautilus 3.6+?
I'm new to blender and have this issue: I'm using the "Industry Compatible" keymap. In "Edit Mode" the keys 1, 2 and 3 swap between vertex, edge and face select - Great!  Now i want to customize it, so i'm adding a new preset "My keymap". As far as i understand this now is based on the "Industry Compatible" keympap and everything works accordingly. But if i close and start blender again, the 1, 2 and 3-key aren't working anymore. I need to go back to the preferences, set the "Industry Compatible" keymap and then set back to "My keymap". Then the 1, 2 and 3-key work again as expected.  This is reproduceable on the last Blender 2.8 version on several different machines. Am i doing something wrong? Is this a bug? $1+a$ and $1-a$ in a ring are invertible if $a$ is nilpotent I'm studying special relativity and saw the 2 postulates of Einstein. The most remarkable one for me is the universal speed of light. Einstein postulated that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source. But what if we are accelerating and we are changing from one inertial frame to another, how will we observe the speed of light? Is it still the same? I suggest it's not? Because I alread saw a small introduction to general relativity where the light will bend in a gravitational field and therefore also when you accelerate. So does the speed of light change because it bends? What is likely to happen when you plug two ends of a network cable to a single switch/router? Will this create problems on the network, or just be ignored? Convolution is uniformly continuous and bounded Suppose $f\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ and $K\in L^1(\mathbb{R})$ with $\int_\mathbb{R}K(x)dx=1$. Show that the convolution $f\ast K$ is a uniformly continuous and bounded function.  The definition of the convolution is $(f\ast K)(x)=\int_\mathbb{R}f(x-y)K(y)dy$.   There is the inequality $\|f\ast K\|_\infty\leq\|f\|_\infty\|K\|_1$, which yields that $f\ast K$ is bounded. But what about uniform continuity? Issues Doing a String Comparison in LINQ Prove that inequality is true for $x>0$: $(e^x-1)\ln(1+x) > x^2$ I was given a task to prove that inequality is true for x>0: $(e^x-1)\ln(1+x) &gt; x^2$. I've tried to use derivatives to show that the $f(x) = (e^x-1)\ln(1+x)-x^2$ is greater than zero, but has never succeeded.  Any help will be appreciated. Adapt Ubuntu to a high-DPI resolution screen How can I adapt Ubuntu to a high resolution display?  I have a display with 3200x1600px on only 11'' and everything looks really tiny. Convergence of $\sum\limits_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n^\alpha \ln^\beta (n)} $ for nonnegative $\alpha$ and $\beta$ Study the convergence of the following series: $$\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n^\alpha \cdot\ln^\beta(n)} \text{ where }\alpha,\beta \geq 0 $$   Applying d'Alembert criterion I have that $$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{n^\alpha  \ln^\beta(n)}{(n+1)^\alpha  \ln^\beta (n+1)} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)^\alpha\left(\frac{\ln(n)}{\ln (n+1)}\right)^\beta = 1$$ so the nature of the series is inconclusive.  If $\alpha = \beta = 0$, then the series diverges, since $\sum_{n=2}^\infty 1 = \infty$.  Should I study the rest of the cases (i.e. if $\alpha = 0, \beta &gt; 0$ the root test and the ratio test are also inconclusive). What is the best form to study the series?.  Thanks in advance In search of story: Survivor of war game can do no wrong I'm trying to help a teacher friend of mine with finding a short story he read when he was a teenager and has not been able to find since.  He described the story in the following way:  In a post-war world there is a setup in which Soviet/Russian soldiers are required to fight against American soldiers in an arena in which both sides have equal setup: a forest, a lake, etc. The winner of the 'game' has the right to govern for the next several years.  It's told from a first person point of view like you're watching the Olympic games and one American soldier gets shot, but is not killed.  He falls and other bodies fall on top of him so it seems the soviets win, however their last two soldiers happen upon him and he kills them first, rendering the United States victorious.  Given that he was the only survivor he has a sort of political amnesty in which he can do no wrong legally. He returns home and he essentially suffers from a form of PTSD.  The story ends with him watching a young girl next door get off the school bus; he walks to the neighbor's home, goes inside and, in front of the girl's parents follows the girl into her room and shuts the door, leaving the reader to assume whatever happens behind the door.  He's been looking for this story in different anthologies for some time.  Can anyone help?  Thanks so much! :) Why are we still using CPUs instead of GPUs? It seems to me that these days lots of calculations are done on the GPU. Obviously graphics are done there, but using CUDA and the like, AI, hashing algorithms (think bitcoins) and others are also done on the GPU. Why can't we just get rid of the CPU and use the GPU on its own? What makes the GPU so much faster than the CPU? How do I install drivers for Realtek RTL8812BU? So I've been experimenting with Ubuntu on and off for a while, but I honestly have no idea what the hell I'm doing. So I have a realtek RTL8812bu WiFi dongle that I'm hoping to get working. I did some research, and came across  that a couple people across two threads said worked for them:  At the bottom it said there is a new version . So somewhere it said it was confirmed to work on kernels up to 4.16, so I checked and I'm on 4.15.0. But the problem I'm having, is what am I supposed to do? There is some installation guide at the bottom that is about as clear as mud to me since I don't know much. I have been thinking about the following formulation of the Axiom of Choice.:     For any relation $R$, there is a function $H$, which is a subset of $R$, and such that $\operatorname{dmn}H=\operatorname{dmn}R$.   At first, it seemed surprising to me that this did not follow from Comprehension (i.e., from the schema  $\forall x_1, x_2, ..., x_n \forall C\exists B \forall x ( x \in B \Leftrightarrow x \in C \land \phi )$, where $B$ does not occur free in $\phi$).    I thought that for any relation, it seems that we should be able to define a subset of it with the same domain meeting a "functional condition".  But when I tried to do this, I couldn't.  However, I felt like I was getting close when I let $B$ be free in $\phi$, i.e., when I let myself say that $w$ is in $R$ and also anything in $H$ meets such and such conditions, where $H$ is the set (function) whose existence I'm trying to prove.    But my understanding is that Choice does not even follow from Naive Comprehension.  So, I wondered if someone could explain the following precisely.   Why does the above formulation of Choice does not follow from regular Comprehension? Why does it not even follow from Naive Comprehension (assuming that it does not)? Do I use ext4 for all partitions (such as / and /boot)? What are the other formats used for? I'm installing ubuntu onto a new laptop with 24gb SSD and a 500gb HDD. I wanted to put / and swap onto the SSD and /home onto the HDD. Is there anything I shouldn't use ext4 for?  I do not ever intend to dual boot. Ubuntu only. I know that $$\gcd(a^b-1,a^c-1)=a^{\gcd(b,c)}-1$$ which can be seen by expanding both terms into geometric series. Is there any such simplification for $$\gcd(a^b+1,a^c+1)=?$$  EDIT: When working with polynomials instead of whole numbers, it is $$gcd(x^n+1,x^m+1)=\begin{cases}a^{\gcd(n,m)}+1 &amp; \nu_2(n) =\nu_2(m)\\1 &amp;\text{else}\end{cases}$$ But this gives only a lower bound for the whole-number case. What are the taxation rules for US non-resident aliens with respect to qualified dividends? Are the rules different for qualified versus non-qualified dividends? Assuming no DTAA exists between the US and the country of residence. Where can I get a device with 'Ubuntu for phones' pre-installed? If I fall off a cliff - say, 1000 feet - can I wait (readied action?) until I am near enough to the ground (my understanding is you fall 500 ft/round) then  safely to the ground? Or, does the momentum from the fall carry over through the teleport and I still splatter across the rocks? comma delineation of consecutive endnotes Consecutive footnotes can be separated by commas by invocation of the multiple option of the  package:    \documentclass{article} \usepackage[multiple]{footmisc} \begin{document} Comma delineation of consecutive footnotes fails upon conversion to endnotes% \footnote{First note.}% \footnote{Second note.}.% \end{document}   This comma delineation fails, however, if footnotes are converted to endnotes using the  package:    \documentclass{article} \usepackage{endnotes} \let\footnote=\endnote \usepackage[multiple]{footmisc} \begin{document} Comma delineation of consecutive footnotes fails upon conversion to endnotes% \footnote{First note.}% \footnote{Second note.}.% \theendnotes \end{document}   How can one preserve automated comma delineation of consecutive endnotes? Which option is grammatical?        There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s writings.   There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings.      Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better.