“ While most of the killings were carried out by IRGC and Basij forces, reports received by Iran International indicate that proxy forces from Iraq and Syria were also used in the crackdown. The deployment of non-local forces suggests a decision to expand repression capacity as quickly as possible.”
I think the point is that its believed they were foreigners who were part of iranian proxy forces (e.g. iranian backed militias in iraq), so weren't doing it for money but out of some sort of loyalty to the iranian regime or ideology.
Usually mercenaries mean people doing it for money not ideology who get paid significantly more than your average soldier.
Yes, absolutely. The top answer on that Reddit link starts with: "MPV is the ultimate video player on planet earth, all the others are junk in comparison" and doesn't mention VLC at all. That's not a helpful answer, it's just signalling that they're a huge fan of MPV, with nothing to suggest they've ever even tried anything else.
In the olden times of not working/playing movies (00's) and being a clueless tech support for ppl even more clueless about them computers,
The vlc was how you could get any movie to work (instead of messing with all these codecs, which apparently, in lieu to another comment in this thread, aren't really codecs).
my biggest pet peeve was that VLC was always considered a streamer and treated local files as streams as well. for the longest time, stepping within the video was not possible. reverse play was also a bane as well, even with i-frame only content. i have long found players that are better for me, but still find myself using VLC frequently because it still has features these other players do not.
This matches with my observation, VLC tends to be more tolerant of slightly broken files or random issues that you encounter when streaming. Especially for hls streams, vlc often works when ffplay refuses to play it, I believe because vlc uses their own demuxer (instead of relying on libavformat).
Ehhh just calling a raw LLM is not going to replace anyone and be prone to hallucination, sure. But lawyers are increasingly using LLM systems, and there's law-specific products that are heavily grounded (ie. they can only respond from source material).
I don't know if that's so much a mistake as it is ambiguity though? To me, using the viewer's perspective in this case seems totally reasonable.
Does it still use the viewer's perspective if the prompt specifies "Put a strawberry in the _patient's left eye_"? If it does, then you're onto something. Otherwise I completely disagree with this.
I think "the left eye" in this particular case (a photo of a skull made of pancake batter) is still very slightly ambiguous. "The skull's left eye" would not be.
“The right socket” can only be implied one way when talking about a body just like you only have one right hand despite the fact that it is on my left when looking at you.
If you are facing a wall-plate with two power sockets on it side by side and you are telling someone to plug something in, which one would be "the right socket", and which would be "the left socket"?
If above the wall-plate is a photo of a person and you are someone to draw a tattoo on the photo, which is "the right arm" and which is "the left arm"?
ETA: and if I were telling someone which socket to plug something into, it would absolutely be from the prospective of the person doing the plugging, not from inside the wall.
"Right hand" is practically a bigram that has more meaning, since handedness is such a common topic.
Also context matters, if you're talking to someone you would say "right shoulder" for _their_ right since you know it's an observer with different vantage point. Talking about a scene in a photo "the right shoulder" to me would more often mean right portion of the photo even if it was the person's left shoulder.
Why? There’s a huge amount of JavaScript bloat, but I’ve never really had an issue with css on any site. If anything, I wish more sites supported a dark mode.
CSS bloat is there also, perhaps not as big a deal. I think that complexity is the main enemy (both JS and CSS and React and npm …) or over on the WordPress plugin morass. I like that the OP is aiming for a simpler world, kind of like the HTMX and Pico CSS ideas that I currently prefer.
52K of CSS should be an opportunity for optimization but you're right, we're so far gone on javascript we should really focus on the mountains before the molehills.
That's like asking any other software dev to "say no" to letting other programs run concurrent with their own. It's just not within scope and any attempts to have your program behave this way will be impossible to maintain.
If you're a business that wants to inject ads without anyone getting in the way, all you have to do is host the pages somewhere the dev can't touch. This would likely be a CDN or similar for a multitude of other good reasons. So the content security policy is now only configurable by the admin who really doesn't give a shit and doesn't even know what's being hosted on there.
Tree shaking and bloat are different concerns. And, technically, is tailwind tree shaking? I thought they only built styles that the compiler could find being used rather than removing styles the compiler couldn't find being used.
Tree shaking is actually a sign of bloat. It is a tool on top of a bloated mess, to fix that mess. It would be better not to make a mess in the first place.
That article refers to literally one line of css. Cutting down the volume of css does not have value, cutting down on animations and other expensive directives does.
I think that’s moot. Everyone agrees there’s a pretty big bloat problem in JS, not so much because of single costly lines (though, they exist) and more the entire ecosystem of includes
Code is a liability lends well to tech debt, wasting time refactoring css to reduce the size by tens of kilobytes has no real world return on investment in most cases.
