It can be both. The Bolshevik revolution scared the rulers of many European countries, and its capitalist class. People were very impressed that a regime as stable as that of the tsar could fall like that. This is a regime people invested in at the time because it was considered safe.
It is arguably as a consequence of this, that these rulers and capitalists supported more or less enthusiastically fascism as a way to contain the masses. Without that (implicit) support, it's hard to say whether fascism would have been anything more than a bizarre cult.
"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! Let the ruling classes tremble..."
They brought it off. In an era when most of Europe was ruled by weak, aging monarchs.[1] In 1917, most of Europe except for France and Portugal still had a monarch, most with real power.
Because Boox won't give you the sources to all the kernel patches that allow Linux to run on these devices. If we didn't need that, there would be no problem, but Linux doesn't have a standard "E-ink" DRM driver so there's no hope to getting this working without a rather intensive reverse-engineering effort.
80k Euros is not even a rounding error in the budget of the Czech government. The last thing you want is them micromanaging that kind of decision because it would end up costing a lot more and make everyone's life terrible.
> This is one often repeated reason why some users reach for wget instead of curl on the command line.
Is there a reason not to do that? I've always used wget and curl interchangeably, because both meet my moderate needs. Is there a reason I should avoid wget?
sometimes when using containers, curl was already installed and I use that. Other times it is wget. I might want to skip adding "apt-get install wget" etc
and wget is -o ; when i have a head full of tasks and code i only remember that they are different and tend to wget things, unless of course i am on a bsd and reach for fetch
He mentions in the thread that he had to delete posts offensive to the developers. Maybe that's why?
In fairness to him, he offers the posters an opportunity to propose a technical solution and responds to all the posts that do it. It is interesting that nobody in the thread went to check in the code of mpv, smplayer, etc. to see how it's done there. Surely this would be the best response to his request for technical suggestions?
> It is interesting that nobody in the thread went to check in the code of mpv, smplayer, etc. to see how it's done there. Surely this would be the best response to his request for technical suggestions?
It would be still interesting that the intersection between the set of users who claim on this forum it's possible and the set of users who can code is empty.
The users noticed that other players can do that, so it wasn't hard to deduce this is possible. You don't need to know how to code to notice that someone, somewhere had done something
I haven't looked into any claims or followed these links, so I don't know what the limitation is.
But abstractly, it's absolutely possible to write a program that decodes frame at a time and displays them slowly.
Now, whether there is some architectural difficulty based on design decisions within their player, or any player, I don't know.
Edit: I guess downvoters have never worked with a video decoder api before? I just read the link and it seems like the rationale is to not seek one frame backwards because you'd have to seek to a key frame and waste some work? That's not the same as it not being possible.
He also accuses other users whose (benign) posts weren't deleted of CoC violations so I'm not going to assume his judgement for deletion was reasonable unless I see the deleted posts.
> He mentions in the thread that he had to delete posts offensive to the developers. Maybe that's why?
Maybe. As those posts have (allegedly) been deleted, it is now impossible to say. It seems probable though. I do find it interesting that he didn't delete the post, spewing actual verbal abuse at the people who dared to propose possible solutions in good faith.
> It is interesting that nobody in the thread went to check in the code of mpv, smplayer, etc. to see how it's done there. Surely this would be the best response to his request for technical suggestions
He has flatly ignored and refused to address, that these other players can do this at all. He makes only mention of "video editors". Well, and YouTube -- cherry picking the easiest case to attack (on grounds of single file format).
At the end of the day, what he needs is an algorithm, which can then be applied against the VLC codebase. For example:
* track timestamp of latest keyframe
* track nframes since latest keyframe
* optionally, keep some sort of unique id to positively identify this keyframe
- now, scrub back to last keyframe (if time accounting is sloppy for this format, overscrub by some amount, the run forward to the keyframe. If overscrubbing is significant, this is where you could compare the keyframe against the reference, to ensure you aren't way far back and needing to run forward further)
- okay, you've found your keyframe; advance (nframes - 1)
- profit
If he comes back and says "that's not fully general", that's true --- but the people asking for this don't care if it's fully general; it's suitable for common use cases and that's what they want. Let it work where it will work. Give up where it won't.
If he comes back and says "sure, that could work, but I don't have time, send a patch", well, okay, that's understandable.
What's actually happening is he's coming back and saying that won't work at all, that it won't support the majority of cases, will take too much compute, etc. and that's just flat out not true. You can do it selectively for the common cases. He might not want to, but that's different from can't.
Like, consider a scenario where you're playing back realtime video over a network connection. You won't necessarily be able to seek forward in that scenario -- you might not have enough video buffered, or hell, the connection could be plain interrupted. Imagine if they just didn't implement forward seek because the solution could not be fully generalized...
And who is going to spend time coding such a thing up, knowing that it is likely to be rejected as "not fully general"?
> Keep in mind that the letter was not written for a mathematician, even though Simone could not understand most of it.
I'd love to see a citation here. Simone Weil referenced mathematics a lot in her philosophical writing, and, growing up in the shadow of her brother, had been exposed to mathematics all her life.
This is addressed in the article, including the fact that you can change the unit system to change the value of g.
The article explains that the coincidence comes from the fact that the meter, as a unit, was defined (by Huygens) based on g and π. It was later redefined several times and the link between the two values became anecdotal. In other words, on another planet the gravitational constant would still have had a value of (approximately) π², and what would have been different is our unit length.
Yeah, I saw the author says it depends on the units. But like, why is this interesting? This is not physics, just some number coincidence in the metric unit system, and I'm sure one can find many more these kind of things by playing around with the constants. The fact the author calls this a "wonderful coincidence" is just... Like, a simple energy conservation or momentum conservation, taught in middle school, is infinitely worth being talked than this.
One philosophy in physics, is that the world and its rules are independent of human. We actively try to eliminate and downplay historical and human factors in the theory, and try to talk about just "the physics", because those factors often obscure the real physics (mechanism) and complicate the calculation. I mean people can find a historical thing interesting, but I guess I just feel disappointed that people find such a trivial thing so interesting, and maybe think that this is what physics is about, while physics is about anything but those pure coincidences.
Physicists need some precise definitions of units, and this is hard. Harder than most people expect. You can't do physics properly using your current king's foot size. This, more than the actual computations, was Huygens' valuable insight.
So you need a universal constant to serve as a standard, and it turns out very few things are in our world. One of them is the ratio of the perimeter of a circle over its diameter. So it's no wonder that this ratio comes up under various forms in our standard units, more often than chance would predict.
This is interesting because students of physics need to understand the complexity and importance of coming up with a standard set of measurement units, based on universal constants.
This is also interesting because the reason we need standard units is that we need science to be reproducible. If all I care about is to understand the world on my own then using the size of my own foot will do just fine as a unit.
Accessorily it's also useful to address the nonsense belief that such coincidences prove the existence of god or the perfection of nature.
None of this will come as radically insightful to you, but there are a lot of people in this world for whom this is not the case.
I'm also not a fan of over the top language, but this seems to be the norm of our attention-seeking times.
>This is not physics, just some number coincidence in the metric unit system
It's not a coincidence. The meter was (historically) intentionally defined as how long a pendulum is that swings in 2 seconds. When you do that, g = pi^2.
>The fact the author calls this a "wonderful coincidence"
The author doesn't call it a wonderful coincidence. The author asks the question of whether it's a wonderful coincidence or not, and comes to the conclusion: no.
Consider this to be an article about physics, not history. The article can be boiled down to one sentence: “the meter was originally defined to make pi^2=g”. This was a fun fact I didn’t know.
OP asked for a better option. He was offered one, which he disagreed with. Because he doesn't like it precisely means that (in his view at least) it is not what he asked for.
Your point was valid though. You can't let someone rock up to the stage uninvited. This would open the door to all kinds of issues.
And the original question of how the situation could have been handled better is the most interesting one. The rest is a game of he said/she said, which hn commenters tend to enjoy arguing about but is ultimately not very instructive.
With hindsight it is clear that the situation had been brewing for some time, and the conflict had been escalating slowly. Perhaps due to the pressure and stress (and time pressure) of organising an event like that nobody managed to have enough distance to deescalate it, which culminated in someone being escorted off stage by security, not a good experience for anyone.
Most likely once the invitation to talk had been rescinded the dice were thrown. It would have been hard for the speaker not to be offended, and unfair on him to expect him to take it quietly and move on without reacting. Someone should have been aware of that and worked with him to control the impact of this on his own reputation.
> Kinda funny to read scientists say testorone doesn't help in sports like these.
Which scientists say that???
The article features a scientist talking about a genetic mutation on the Y chromosome which affects the production of testosterone, and another scientist talking about another genetic mutation that prevents testosterone from being processed in the body. In both cases the individuals with these mutations have XY chromosome, yet female phenotypes. Individuals with the second mutation would have high testosterone without the performance enhancement. Those mutations are rare and would certainly not be picked up by comparing the racing time of men vs women.
No scientist in the article or any other that I've read makes the bold claim thar testosterone doesn't enhance performance in general.
Edit: in fact based on the estimate from the article of 1 in 300 people being affected by a DSD, you might expect that if a DSD enhances performance of women to the level of men (through increased testosterone for example) you might expect some women from your dataset to reach the middle of the pack of men performance. This is a hypothesis you can even test statistically, though that would be limited by the little we know of the many types of DSD.
Now imagine that the newspaper not only has a page on community events but starts selling tickets for those events. Some well-meaning politician comes in and says that the newspaper should pay a portion of the ticket sale to the organisers. So the newspaper stops advertising the event in their pages, and the event starts struggling with less attendance than before.
Analogies are nice, but one should always be cautious that they don't oversimplify the issue.
It is arguably as a consequence of this, that these rulers and capitalists supported more or less enthusiastically fascism as a way to contain the masses. Without that (implicit) support, it's hard to say whether fascism would have been anything more than a bizarre cult.