Wireframe view makes everything invisible when in Object mode
AMD GPU Material in "material preview mode" and "rendered mode", is entirely gray as background. Only outline is displayed
How can I get rid of this black hole in my minecraft world? I have interesting bug that I have experienced before but has gone away on its own. This one is not going away though.  I have a giant stripe or chunks missing from my desert biome, I would say probably 7 chunks long.  I'm guessing the chunks are corrupted or something, what was hoping to figure is whether it can repaired or reverted.  Here is a picture of the problem. How do i make my ubuntu server public? I want to know how to make my ubuntu server ip public. I'm not asking for a domain, if people would be able to access my website by ip, it would be great! (just for now) Does someone have an idea how to do this? How critical are macOS Mojave compatibility requirements? As per Apple support document, :     1. Check compatibility      You can upgrade to macOS Mojave from OS X Mountain Lion or later on   any of the following Mac models. Your Mac also needs at least 2GB of   memory and 12.5GB of available storage space, or up to 18.5GB of   storage space when upgrading from OS X Yosemite or earlier.         MacBook introduced in early 2015 or later   MacBook Air introduced in mid 2012 or later   MacBook Pro introduced in mid 2012 or later   Mac mini introduced in late 2012 or later   iMac introduced in late 2012 or later   iMac Pro (all models)   Mac Pro introduced in late 2013, plus mid-2010 or mid-2012 models with a recommended Metal-capable graphics card.      I am currently running macOS High Sierra on my Early 2011 MacBook Pro.  What does Apple's requirements mean for my ability to install Mojave? Is it possible or worthwhile to do so? When one wants to list various cases/classes/categories/types of objects in a string of conjunctions, is it preferable (or even mandatory) to keep on using (the same) preposition in front of each one them?  Moreover, does singular or plural form of the word "case", "class", "category" make any difference in the previous question?  Examples:   In the present article, we study the case of X, of Y and of Z objects. (in this example, as in most of the ones I have in mind, it is the preposition "of" which is relevant to my question). We study the cases/classes of X and of Y objects. vs. We study the cases/classes of X and Y objects.   Although it is rather clear that, in the singular case, the absence of "of" in later conjuncts may lead to a logical confusion (e.g., mistakenly taken as the one class/case of objects which are both X and Y), when it comes to plural of the words "case", "class", etc., this might not be an issue. Still, there might anyway be a rule in the plural setting as well. I have a question about the following passage on pg. 89 of Zee's QFT in a nutshell:     At first sight, what Dirac wanted does not make sense. The equation is supposed to have the form "some linear combination of $\partial_\mu$ acting on some field $\psi$ is equal to some constant times the field." Denote the linear combination by $c^\mu\partial_\mu$. If the $c^\mu$'s are four ordinary numbers, then the four-vector $c^\mu$ defines some direction and the equation cannot be Lorentz invariant.   The simplest equation I can construct that he is referring to is  $$(c^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}-m)\phi(x)=0, $$  for $m&gt;0$. Taking $\phi(x)\rightarrow\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)$, and $c^{\mu}\rightarrow\Lambda^{\mu}_{\ \ \nu}c^{\nu}$. Then, the left term transforms like   \begin{align*} \Lambda^{\mu}_{\ \ \nu}c^{\nu}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\sigma}_{\ \ \mu}\partial_{\sigma}\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x) &amp;= \delta^{\sigma}_{\ \ \nu}c^{\nu}\partial_{\sigma}\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)\\ &amp;=c^{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma}\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x). \end{align*}  Then, we have that   $$ (c^{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma}-m)\phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)=0.$$  But doesn't this show that the equation is Lorentz-invariant? Deriving the inverse of a 2x2 matrix I am looking for a derivation for the inverse of a 2x2 matrix. I am also wondering why the determinant is involved in the expression. I am familiar with high school maths and linear algebra. If there is an intuitive reason for expression i would also be interested in that. What's the deepest reason why QCD bound states have integer charge? Why did the quality of terminators increase from movies 1 to 3? I have seen only the first three movies, so I don't know whether the other movies/TV series deal with this question or not. My main point is that in the movies, the terminator that travels back furthest in time is of the worst quality, and the quality increases with the time travel (meaning they travelled from a later time). What is a good explanation for this?  Note: I am not interested in the obvious not-in-universe explanation that they wanted something better and bigger for each new movie. My java code has an obvious error. Why does it compile and run? I'd like to "add to" an existing command by writing something like  \renewcommand{\somecommand}{\begin{something}\somecommand\end{something}}   but (not surprisingly) I get errors about being "too deeply nested".  Is there a way to take an existing command, add to it (by appending or prepending additional commands or text), and then have that "augmented" command replace the existing command? $ac\equiv bc \pmod{\!m}\!\!\iff\!\! a\equiv b \pmod{\!\!\frac{m}{(c,m)}}$ [Euclid's Lemma, congruence form] I came across this theorem:   For all integers a,b,c and m&gt;0, if d = GCD(c,m) then a*c ≡ b*c (mod m) iff a ≡ b (mod m/d).  The =&gt;proof states this:  a*c ≡ b*c (mod m) =&gt; m|(a-b)*c                    =&gt; m/d | (a-b)*c/d                   =&gt; m/d | (a-b)                   =&gt; a ≡ b (mod m/d)   I don't understand how to go from step 2 to step 3. The proof states that this is possible because m/d and c/d are coprime. To me this means GCD(m/d, c/d) = 1 but how does this cancel out the whole term? rent a car, rent out a car, hire a car English not my native language. I'm trying to understand what would be correct in British English.  If I want to use a car for some time. I can say, "I want to rent a car". But from my knowledge there may be a  misunderstanding. I can say the same words if I want to give a car to someone to use for some time and I want to receive payment.  So what would be correct and not misunderstanding?   1) I want to use a car for some time = "I want to hire a car" 2) I want to give a car to someone to use for some time = "rent out a car"   Is my understanding correct? If a function $f(x)$ is Riemann integrable on $[a,b]$, is $f(x)$ bounded on $[a,b]$? Sometimes chicken breast can be thick and I never know how to tell when it's cooked! How can I be certain it is cooked all the way through? Correct tracked camera orientation How do you get the caret position in a &lt;textarea&gt; using JavaScript?  For example: This is| a text  This should return 7.  How would you get it to return the strings surrounding the cursor / selection?  E.g.: 'This is', '', ' a text'.  If the word “is” is highlighted, then it would return 'This ', 'is', ' a text'. Function ereg() is deprecated I looked up several tutorials on how to install and they dont work. I do everything correctly but then i get this:     The file   '/home/mike/Downloads/minecraft.jar'   is not marked as executable.  If this   was downloaded or copied from an   untrusted source, it may be dangerous   to run.  For more details, read about   the executable bit.   I run the minecraft.jar with the Sun java runtime 6 but it doesnt work:/. Any help would be greatly appreciated! I want to build an uncountable well-ordered set within the theory $Z^\textbf-$. So, I take $A=\omega$ (exists by infinity axiom) and define $$W:=\{(X,R)\in\mathcal{P}(A)\times\mathcal{P}(A\times A):\langle X,R\rangle\ \text{is a well-ordered set}\}$$  With this I consider the set $T:=W/\cong$ (where $\cong$ is isomorphism relation). Note that $W$ and $T$ are sets by power set axiom. So I define for each equivalence class $[x],[y]\in T$ the order  $$ [x]\leq_T[y]\Leftrightarrow \text{type}(x, R_x)\leq \text{type}(y,R_y) $$  Here, $R_x$ means the order of $x$ that make it belongs to $[x]$.   So, $T$ is well ordered by $\leq_T$ and it is uncountable.  Question: I don't pretty sure if I can build $\leq_ T$ without replacement axiom. Another doubt is, Can I take the $R_x$ without AC? I have a third-party library which consists mainly of a large number of static (.a) library files.  I can compile this into a single .a library file, but I really need it to be a single .so shared library file.  Is there any way to convert a static .a file into a shared .so file?  Or more generally is there a good way to combine a huge number of static .a files with a few .o object files into a single .so file?