This is why I end up creating an interface for the calls that perform modifications. Then I have one implementation that logs and one implementation that does the actual work. I end up with the output being as representative as possible as to what would happen. I also feel a lot more comfortable that a dry run truly won't write anything when the only class that could ever actually write anything is not even instantiated in dry run mode. I don't get that same comfort when there's a ton of branches sprinkled throughout checking for a dry run flag.
This is the only reason I know about this Ugoos device. I find it so strange that Profile 7 is effectively unsupported outside of Blu-ray players and this one device. It doesn't even seem like it can be a processing power issue because the documentation says that the other profiles have higher maximum pixel rates.
I don't have the Ugoos box myself though. Instead I'm running a series of processing steps on my Blu-ray rips which converts the file to Profile 8. For every movie I've tried so far this has been fine, though I've read that some movies lean far too heavily on the FEL and have color problems without it.
> I find it so strange that Profile 7 is effectively unsupported outside of Blu-ray players and this one device.
Since DV Profile 7 is only used for Blu-Ray discs, and playing backed up BR copies from a non BR player is not really supported, it kind if makes sense that it's not supported.
For the Ugoos device, I'm not sure, but I thought the chipset inside supports it, but you still need to flash custom firmware (CoreELEC) and provide a Dolby Vision file to unlock this. So it's not supported out of the box.
When I played Hollow Knight some years ago on my Steam Deck, I had to switch to the Windows version under Proton because the Linux native version was giving me random graphical glitches that made it impossible to see what was going on until I moved to a different screen and came back.
Is this actually real? I don't see any link to a study. The use of AI has me suspect, as does visiting the main page of the site and seeing: "A 365º view of your heart health" I guess that could be intentional but it comes off as someone mistaking days in a year with degrees in a circle.
There are two main caveats to the TARGET-D study. First, this was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, but the full manuscript isn’t out yet. It’s possible the results will end up not being statistically significant, having a methodological flaw, and so on. In the presented results, the reduction in heart attack risk was statistically significant but the change in overall death and stroke risk had a p value > 0.05. Second, while Vitamin D seems to be an effective intervention to reduce heart attack risk, we don’t yet know whether Vitamin D is an independent marker of heart disease risk or whether it’s reflecting known mechanisms such as inflammation and calcification.
This was here in this article most likely not the case, I assume, but still it is bad to talk about the data without having published the article already.
It shouldn't be different. But law enforcement wants access and everyone who could reign them in seems to also want them to have access. Honestly it's surprising at this point they haven't argued that people can be compelled to give up their password using whatever means necessary.
This actually seem quite flag-worthy to me. Look at the rest of the site, it's not at all trustworthy. The first post says it's by some random 16 year old (if we can actually believe that) and only has a few posts. One of them is a comparison of smart watches which says they tested them in the subheading on the article listing, but then doesn't show anything more than a surface level comparison from AI.
reply