I get the following warnings whenever I run apt upgrade: W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/icl_dmc_ver1_09.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/tgl_dmc_ver2_04.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/skl_huc_2.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/bxt_huc_2.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/kbl_huc_4.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/glk_huc_4.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/kbl_huc_4.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/cml_huc_4.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/cml_guc_33.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/icl_huc_9.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/ehl_huc_9.0.0.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/ehl_guc_33.0.4.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/tgl_huc_7.0.3.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/tgl_guc_35.2.0.bin for module i915
I am getting these warnings every time I update my initramfs image(-s) with  on my Dell PowerEdge T20 server running    10.0. Is there a fix?    W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/bxt_dmc_ver1_07.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/skl_dmc_ver1_27.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/kbl_dmc_ver1_04.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/cnl_dmc_ver1_07.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/glk_dmc_ver1_04.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/kbl_guc_ver9_39.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/bxt_guc_ver9_29.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/skl_guc_ver9_33.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/kbl_huc_ver02_00_1810.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/bxt_huc_ver01_07_1398.bin for module i915 W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/skl_huc_ver01_07_1398.bin for module i915
Can a coin with an unknown bias be treated as fair? How does the integral $\int_{D_C} e^{ia z}P(z)/Q(z)\,\mathrm{d}z$ blow up. In my book I have a theorem that goes something like the following     Let $P(x)$ be $Q(x)$ polynomials such that $\deg(Q) \geq \deg(P) + 2$.   Then \begin{align*}  \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{P(x)}{Q(x)}  e^{iax} \,\mathrm{d}x  = 2 \pi i \frac{a}{|a|} \sum_{k=1}^{m} \mathrm{Res}\left[  \frac{P(x)}{Q(x)} , z_k \right] \end{align*} where $a$ is a real   constant and $z_1,\,\ldots\,,z_m$ are the singularities to $P(x)/Q(x)$ in   the upper halfplane if $a&gt;0$ and the lower halfplane if $a&lt;0$.   I am having a bit of problems understanding this. I know the reason why we have to switch contour is that $e^{iz}$ blows up. But I really can not see why or how it blows up.   Take the canonical example for why this theorem is useful  $$   J = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{e^{iz}}{z^2+1} $$    Now the clue here is to show that the integral along the curve tends to zero, and then use the residue theorem. To show that the integral tends to zero I did this \begin{align*}  \left| \int_{C_1} \frac{e^{iz}}{1+z^2} \,\mathrm{d}z\right|  \leq \int_{C_1} \left| \frac{e^{iz}}{1+z^2} \right| \,\mathrm{d}z   \leq \sup_{z = R e^{i \theta}} \left( \frac{1}{\left|1+z^2\right|} \right)       \int_{C_1} |e^{iz}| \,\mathrm{d}z \end{align*} where the $ML$-inequality was used in the last inequality  On the circle with radius $R$ we have $|e^{iz}|=R$, and we can use the inequality $|a+b|\leq|a|-|b|$ to simplify further \begin{align*}  \left|\int_{D_R} \frac{e^{iz}}{1+z^2}\,\mathrm{d}z \right|  \leq \sup_{z = R e^{i \theta}} \left( \frac{1}{|z|^2-1}\right)  \int_{D_R} R \,\mathrm{d}z  \leq \pi \frac{R}{R^2-1} \end{align*} which tends to zero as $R \to \infty$ as wanted. but if one instead had $e^{-iz}$ then the theorem states that one has to use the lower half plane. But I do not see where my calculations err if one persists in using the contour in the upper half plane? What goes wrong, and why does it go wrong? $|e^{-iz}|$ should still be $R$ on the semi-circle.   How can one formally show that the integral diverges when picking the contour as a semi circle in the lower half plane? What is the best way to return an error from a function when I'm already returning a value? We often see new users make offtopic, low quality posts, with broken English and cries for help. These questions look significantly different from most on SO.  When I worked in publishing, we would frequently receive documents that were incorrectly formatted. This was a major problem and we wasted a lot of time sending emails back and forth.  I made a small JavaScript quiz asking our authors about the formatting directions and the number of emails drastically dropped. I felt this was much nicer than simply rejecting them, additionally providing us a chance to make the directions more clear.  It is slightly unconventional but, would showing new users a quiz where they have to identify good and bad posts help to improve the quality of SO questions?  Edit (3/8/2017)  Recently a Norwegian website got some media attention for . How can I swap or replace multiple strings in code at the same time? Does a spellcaster know when concentration ends? Does a spellcaster know when concentration ends on one of their spells?  For example, when a wizard casts invisibility, that target is invisible until they attack or after one hour. So if the character attacks and the spell ends is the wizard aware that their spell that they are concentrating on ended earlier than expected? Order of keys in dictionary There is already a similar post, that has an answer to my question, but it is quite short and I don't get it... So I am trying to show that  \begin{align} \{e_K |~ K \subset G~ conjugacy~ class \} \end{align} is a basis for $Z(\mathbb{Z}[G])$. Serre even writes "one immediately checks that the $e_K$ form a basis", but even reading the other post  I don't see that...  My approach to this is:  Be $x \in Z(\mathbb{Z}[G])$, which is equivalent to: $x = gxg^{-1}$ for all $g \in G$. Writing  $x = \sum\limits_{h \in G} \lambda_h h$, we get $x = \sum\limits_{h \in G} \lambda_h ghg^{-1}$. I don't really know how to go on at this point. I mean, I know that when $a,b \in K$ (same conjugacy class) you get $\sum\limits_{s \in K} \mu_s s = \mu\sum\limits_{s \in K} s$, since \begin{align} a = hbh^{-1} \Rightarrow \mu_a = \mu_b ~\forall a,b\in K \end{align} So all elements in the same conjugacy class have the same scalar.  But from here I don't really know how I can generate the $x = \sum\limits_{h \in G} \lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ with the $e_K$ ...  I would be really thankful, if someone could give me quite a basic proof that even I understand... As the title asks, why didn't the basilisk bite received in the Chamber of Secrets destroy the Horcrux inside the bitten person?   Yes, I know Fawkes quite quickly healed the bite wound with his phoenix tears, but when Harry used the basilisk fang to destroy Tom Riddle's diary the destruction of that Horcrux was immediate. When Ron hit the locket with the Sword of Gryffindor, it was destroyed immediately. Although the destruction of the ring occurred off-page, Dumbledore used the Sword of Gryffindor to destroy it, so presumably, like the locket, it was gone right away. Nagini died straightaway when Neville decapitated her. The destruction of the Hufflepuff cup happens off-page. The diadem seems to have been destroyed by Fiendfyre immediately as well, as when Harry examined it outside the Room of Requirement it was already leaking a blood-like substance, and then it cracked in half. When Voldemort hit Harry with Avada Kedavra in the forest, Harry woke up in limbo with the last fragment of Voldemort's soul - that awful flayed baby-like being - separated from him immediately.   Is there a logical/canon-based explanation for why the fragment of Voldemort's soul residing in Harry wasn't destroyed upon Harry being bitten by the basilisk?  NOTE: I've read the HP Wiki's entry on Horcruxes; however, I find the HP Wiki to be inconsistent in its accuracy, so I'm hesitant to accept the Wiki's explanation on the matter. I'd prefer an explanation constructed from information in the books or a statement by JKR, or the like. I am trying to prove the following statement but have trouble  comprehending/going forward with some parts! Here is the statement:     If $A$ is any set, then  $|A|$ $&lt;$ $|P(A)|$   Here is what I have so far:  We need to show that there is an injection from $A$ to $P(A)$ but not a surjection.   A natural choice for an injection is the function $ f(x)$ $=$ $\{x \}$, which in plain English, takes any element $x$ (that is in $A$) and sends it to the one-element set $\{x \}$. Thus $f(x)$ is injective!  To show that there is no surjection, for the sake of contradiction, assume there is a surjection. Here is where I start to have trouble. Surjectivity means that every element of the co-domain is mapped to an element of the domain, correct? Consequently, in this particular case, we are "matching" sets (from $P(A)$) to elements (from $A$) right?  If the above is correct, my problem arises here. I am not sure how to prove that $f$ is not surjective. Unfortunately, I am easily confused by notation so please explain in English.  Thank you in advance!! :) "going to do" vs. "going to be doing" Note: this post is different to , which just cites part from somewhere else, without any further analysis and thinking. Furthermore, none of the answers to that post answers my question - the situations where &quot;will (going to) be doing&quot; is more appropriate.   I will be participating in IELTS test next Tuesday afternoon.  In an online class, the teacher says the following at the beginning of the lesson.  I will be using NotePod (pointed out by red rectangle) to write relevant points we talk about today.   I guess &quot;will be using&quot; is more appropriate than &quot;will use&quot; there, right?  A  explains  This &quot;tense&quot; is used for reporting a scheduled activity with special focus on its timing— as if one is standing in the future and experiencing the flow of the time. The focus is on the temporary, ongoing, or repetitive nature of the activity.   I understand the grammar rules of those verb tenses and the difference between this group  I am going to drive home tomorrow.   I am going to be driving home tomorrow.  The former is just convey my activity in the near future while the latter probably makes an implication that &quot;don't disturb me as I am driving in that time&quot; However, in the following situations, I don't see the difference between 2 verb tenses.  Welcome back to this class. Today's lesson is for the IELTS students who are going to be taking the IELTS test. it's for everybody to be honest with you. this lesson is useful for anybody who needs to do some writing.   who are going to take the IELTS test ... If $\mathbf A$ and $\mathbf B$ are Hermitian, when does $\det(\mathbf A-\lambda\mathbf B)=0$ have only real roots? Let $\mathbf A, \mathbf B$ be Hermitian matrices of the same size. What is the characterization of $\mathbf A, \mathbf B$ such that $p(\lambda)=\det(\mathbf A-\lambda\mathbf B)=0$ has only real roots?   If $\mathbf B$ is positive definite (I corrected this), it is easy to see $p(\lambda)$ has only real roots. What is "pure energy" in matter-antimatter annihilation made of? I used to read the term "pure energy" in the context of matter-antimatter annihilation.  Is the "pure energy" spoken of photons? Is it some form of heat?  Some kind of particles with mass?   Basically, what does "pure energy" in the context of matter-antimatter annihilation refer to? Does removing an application from Software Center do a remove or a purge When I remove an application already installed through the Software Center. Does it remove the app the same way as doing a purge to it (aptitude purge) or does it remove it like a "remove" (aptitude remove). Services Actions Missing in Central Admin Windows 7 "Waiting for background program to close" I am using Windows 7 Home Premium. When I shut down my computer why does the screen show this:    Before shutting down I'm close all programs. As mentioned in the , Ubuntu 18.04 LTS will not have a 32 bit Desktop Image Installer. But in the  it has  32bit Desktop Images.  This is little off topic, but I'm confused. Why do universal constants have the values they do? So I've got a file with loads of simple objects. This will later be used to cut out these shapes out of plastic. So, using the material optimally is of outmost importance. I was wondering if there is any script or plugin that could automaticly arrange the objects within the artboard so they could fit best. Is there a place where I can look what updates I've installed?