scrion
An interrupt is an input that can be triggered to interrupt normal execution. It is used for e. g. hardware devices to signal the processor something has happened that requires timely processing, so that real-time behavior can be achieved (for variable definitions of real-time). Interrupts can also be triggered by software, and this explanation is a gross oversimplification, but that information is what is most likely relevant and interesting for your case at this point.
The commands you posted will sort the interrupts and output the one with the highest count (via head -1), thereby determining the interrupt that gets triggered the most. It will then disable that interrupt via the user-space interface to the ACPI interrupts.
One of the goals of ACPI is to provide a kind of general hardware abstraction without knowing the particular details about each and every hardware device. This is facilitated by offering (among other things), general purpose events - GPEs. One of these GPEs is being triggered a lot, and the processing of that interrupt is what causes your CPU spikes.
The changes you made will not persist after a reboot.
Since this is handled by kworker, you could try and investigate further via the workqueue tools: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/workqueue
In general, Linux will detect if excessive GPEs are generated (look for the term “GPE storm” in your kernel log) and stop handling the interrupts by switching to polling. If that happens, or if the interrupts are manually disabled, the system might not react to certain events in a timely manner. What that means for each particular case depends on what the interrupts are being responsible for - hard to tell without additional details.
It’s not like Bluetooth started demanding location permissions, the conceptual model of the permission was revised: having access Bluetooth means an app could determine your location via a form of lateration.
In earlier versions of smartphone operating systems, this was not transparent to users lacking the technical background, so Bluetooth also requiring location access is actually an attempt at making users aware of that. I’m not an iOS developer, so I can’t comment on iPhones, but on Android versions prior to 11, having access to Bluetooth meant an app would be able to determine your location.
Today, you can require the permission ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, which expresses that your app might use Bluetooth to obtain location information on Android. Also, if you’re just scanning for nearby devices to connect your app to, but don’t want users to be confused why your smart fridge app needs to know your precise location, you can declare a permission flag (neverForLocation) and Android will strip beacon information from the scan results, better asserting your intentions.
So, overall: no, there is nothing nefarious going on, it was always possible to determine your location via Bluetooth, and the update to the permission model was an honest improvement that actually benefits you as user.
Now, there are still plenty of shady apps around, and apps that are poorly written - don’t use those.
honey bees are bad for pollinators
Hm? What do you mean?
From this paper:
A. mellifera appears to be the most important, single species of pollinator across the natural systems studied, owing to its wide distribution, generalist foraging behaviour and competence as a pollinator.
This is a genuine question btw.
Someone found the DMT stash
They really had the gall to mention the benefits for families moving in.