Have to Power Boot Twice to Load Lubuntu 18.04 on old 32-bit Dell Laptop

I have an old, 32-bit Dell Inspiron 1505 laptop that had been running an earlier version Lubuntu. I recently installed Lubuntu 18.04 and it initially worked. Then, following a major software update to that re-installation (45 minutes), an unusual boot problem occurred. Problem Statement • Press power button once: Dell splash screen > brief flash of dim background light > Grub menu appears > screen remains black for as long as I let it sit there, but the power indicator light remains ON. So power is on but with a black screen. • Press and hold power button: brief flash of dim background light > power goes OFF. Power indicator light OFF. No power to the laptop. • Press power button a 2nd time: Dell splash Screen > Grub Menu > blinking cursor > /dev/sda1/ recovering journal, followed by a minute of messages for starting various services and modules > Lubuntu desktop opens. Power light ON, hard drive light OFF, until I open a browser; then the hhd light turns ON. • So, I am able to access the GRUB menu on the 2nd power boot and open Lubuntu • I can boot from either the USB or DVD options, and from a Live DVD USB or disk Actions Taken so far: • I have run ‘Boot Repair Disk’ twice. I have posted its report at http://paste.ubuntu.com/p/WZdNGXKWzG for further info. • If it matters, the battery on this laptop is no longer taking a charge. • I have run MemTest+86 and hard drive S.M.A.R.T. tests, and they show no errors • Sda1 is using the ext4 file format. I have researched this problem and identified several potential solutions: 1. Edit Grub file and replace ‘quiet splash’ with nomodset 2. Use a different kernel (I only have 1 on the Grub menu) 3. Disconnect a USB mouse (didn’t help) 4. Substitue gdm for lightdgm as default log in manager (how to do this?) 5. Boot into a recovery mode and run fsck 6. Examine the /var/log/dpkg.log for errors 7. I have read there is a bug with Lubuntu 18.04 on 32-bit systems So if Grub menu works, power to the laptop is on (on 2nd power button), and hardware is not an issue (hhd and RAM tested good), then at what point does this boot problem occur, what does ‘recovering journal’ imply, and how do I fix it? It seems to me to be a software, rather than a hardware problem, but any suggestions would be most appreciated to this highly frustrating boot problem. Thanks.

How much of 32-bit support is dropped in Catalina?

MacOS Catalina is said to have dropped support for 32-bit applications. But how much of the support is actually dropped? Is it only that 32-bit libraries are no longer supplied? Or will 32-bit binaries, even if statically linked, fail to launch?

If 32-bit binaries can’t launch, is there any supported way for a 64-bit app to request the kernel to create a 32-bit code segment?

32-bit and 64-bit Android: how to tell before buying a phone

I have been looking into 32-bit or 64-bit Android versions for phones. It seems to me that the information on the number of bits of the installed Android version is always missing from phones’ specs, unlike what happens for the CPU. Googling around, the ways I have found to understand whether a phone is running a 32-bit or a 64-bit OS all include actually doing something with the phone, like looking up the kernel version or downloading some app, like AIDA64.

How do I know if a phone I want to buy will come with a 32-bit or a 64-bit Android before I buy it? It would be interesting to find a layman-friendly criterion or resource that allows me to know this in advance, especially to be able to look into the cheapest phones running a 64-bit Android.

install macos on virtualbox windows 7 32bit

DOWNLOAD LINK ===> https://bit.ly/2T7deeA

KW:
install macos on virtualbox windows 7 32bit
install mac os x in windows 7
install mac os x in virtualbox on windows 7
install mac os x virtual machine windows 7

Latest Downloads:
parallels desktop 13 for mac activation key free
pokemon x and y emulator download ios…

install macos on virtualbox windows 7 32bit

Can a 32-bit hash be made into a 64-bit hash by calling it twice with different seed?

If I have a hash function that generates a 32 bit result with a good distribution (say murmur3):

var h32 = hash32(str, seed);  // returns a 32bit hex string (8 chars): '0123abcd' 

it will still generate collisions with a probability of 50% when I have 77163 samples.

Can I create a 64 bit hash with equally good distribution by simply concatenating the result strings of two calls with different seed?

For example

h64 = hash32(str, seed1) + hash32(str, seed2);  // '0123abcd8d4f614a' 

or by modifying the input slightly on the second call

h64 = hash32(str) + hash32(str + 'x');  // '0123abcd8d4f614a' 

Or put it another way:

If hash32('foo') == hash32('bar'), can I assume that hash32('foo'+'x') == hash32('bar'+'x') is completely independent / unlikely?

UPDATE: thinking about it, this will probably not work if the hash algorithm works incrementally character-by-character, so this will not help either:

h64 = hash32(str) + hash32(str + str); 

So I rather ask for a way to ‘build a 64-bit hash if only a 32-bit hash function is available.’

Encoding of timestamps over cosmological time (64-bit linear vs 32-bit logarithmic)

I understand this is the place to ask questions pertaining to software design. If my question is considered to opinion-based, is there a forum or something better suited for the discussion?

Objective

My goal is to develop an application which can store & manipulate “historical data” covering the full range of time from the Big Bang (13.7 Ga) to the present day without loss of precision in the modern era. This encoding system should ideally represent dates as integers for the sake of fast queries. There is expected to be >100,000 records with dates spread throughout cosmological time but increasing in density towards the present day.

The will be a far larger number of records in the Holocene than in the several billion years preceding it. These records will also be dated to a higher precision; very recent events might have a time of day, requiring precision down to 1 second. Much older events might only be known to within a few thousand years, or more. I do not want to divide the timeline into sections! It is important than dates are handled in a consistent way across all of time, since any division would be arbitrary and un-physical.

Discussion/Solution

The existing UNIX epoch time is a good candidate to start from, already encoding timestamps to 1 second precision in a signed integer format. However, this scheme cannot handle very old dates given that the number of seconds since the Big Bang is approx. 4.3×10^17 which far exceeds the range of a 32-bit integer.

I see two potential solutions to this:

  1. Replace the 32-bit integer with a 64-bit integer, extending the range to roughly 1.8×10^19 (~50 times the required amount). The advantage of this method is that the encoding system remains linear and uniform. The disadvantage is in storage space and query time.
  2. Given the observation that precision is less important the farther back in time we go, we can consider the possibility of sticking with 32-bit integers, but using some kind of logarithmic scale instead. In this scheme, contiguous integers close to the modern age would represent a time difference of ~1 second, and this value would increase as we go back in time.

The signed range of a 32-bit integer is ~2.1 billion. Averaged over the entire history of the universe, this equates to roughly 6.3 years per integer, which is a promising result. If recent history skews this value towards ~1 second per integer, this can be balanced by skewing in the other direction at the opposite extreme. i.e. something like 100,000 years per integer in the vicinity of the Big Bang.

Thus, by taking advantage of the increasing uncertainty in dates as we move backwards in time, it is theoretically possible to encode all of cosmic history using a logarithmic 32-bit integer scale without losing precision in modern times… But is this a better approach? Do the performance benefits of 32-bit integers outweigh the cost of using a logarithmic scale?