Primary goal: preview inside the video on hover (scrub). I may be mistaken but I don't think PLEX has it. Video Hub App also has a filmstrip view and a quick and advanced search capabilities (by folder, file name, exclude, etc). PLEX has many features that my app isn't trying to replicate -- I think the two are aimed at different use cases.
I’m not sure it does the exact thing you’re talking about and I don’t think it’s enabled by default, AND it’s computationally a beast of an operation to do with large libraries, but thumbnails while seeking are supported: https://support.plex.tv/articles/202197528-video-preview-thu...
It isn't immediately clear to me, but could someone throw an nginx proxy in front of this and use it like Plex, either over the internet or local network?
1) extract screenshots from videos from a folder you give it (should work over network as far as I can tell -- it works with external hard drives for sure).
2) show a gallery view of your videos. When you click on any video, it launches your OS's default video player.
I'm unsure if/how it would work in the case you describe.
Docker [the technology not the company] has reached a level of success where it is discussed and used by people who are not aware of the technical details of its implementation. It is entirely practical to use Docker without ever visiting Docker's official documentation.
Because Docker is an alternative to the virtual machines with which people tend to have more experience, it is normal for people to fill holes in their knowledge with facts about VM's. Much of the time, this works.
I don't think the title is great, but I think more than anything else it reflects frustration with the complexity of containers and normal disappointment with things that at first appear to be silver bullets.
The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed. -- William Gibson
Author here. Apologies if this came across as clickbait. Would you point to said documentation? I haven't been able to find the parts that illuminate this issue, including on the official architecture page [1]. Thanks!
As a hiring manager that gives take home tests rather than testing on site, I feel on balance it gives a better idea of what they're capable of than a barrage of on site tests & technical questions. Given the option of spending half a day on site and half a day at home coding, are you saying you'd prefer that over a full day including half a day of whiteboard and programming with people watching what you do?
There isn't a correct answer I guess, nothing will suite everyone.
It's that people will only remember the sensationalist news. That's why it must be a requirement to only report what is factually proven or otherwise just say "planed had to land, reason unknown".
That's a problem with people and their memory, not the news outlet. The headline at the moment literally says it was unlikely to be a drone, but that still doesn't rule it out completely. Following your rules, that wouldn't make it as a story because it isn't factually proven.
> That's a problem with people and their memory, not the news outlet.
Arsenic being poisonous is in fact a problem with peoples' bodies not being able to handle it. And yet putting it in food and selling to people is not something you're allowed to. The "problem with people and their memory" here is a human universal, something thay can't do much about, so asking them to "just be smarter" is not a practical approach.
> The headline at the moment literally says it was unlikely to be a drone, but that still doesn't rule it out completely. Following your rules, that wouldn't make it as a story because it isn't factually proven.
And it shouldn't. Because on what basis does this story (and previous ones) promote drones to attention? It could be a bird. Or an UAV. Or a piece of plane falling off. Or someone playing with a spud gun. Or a turtle[0]. Or something else entirely. By saying "it's unlikely it was a drone" they're already framing the discussion.
That's a nice idea, but would never work in reality. People want to know things. When an explosion happens people are going to watch the TV network with sources that can confirm off the record what happened, even though they don't "know it is true".
Unless you're going to pass a law requiring all news organizations to behave this way (and when did government control of news ever go bad?) it's never going to happen.
It's not the government who should control news, but just as a journalist may not be put behind bars for reporting uncomfortable facts, news shall not present anything they're not sure of.
I'd like to think the solution is simple, require a license before you can call yourself a news agency and take it away after three unfounded statements. There's room for fun news that reports on some famous guy's divorce, but it should be clearly labeled as speculative rumors.
So, if you don't have a news license, you can still print papers and magazine and have tv shows, but like on cigarette packages, there will always be a label visible at all times: Speculative Infotainment.
Any controlling body must consist of a healthy mix of representatives and no financial persuasion may be allowed.
In essence it's like reading a book and knowing it's fiction, not a report, and most news reporting is the same as information passed around citizens as hearsay.
Moreover, when I look at the way some tv hosts report information, it's more acting than should be allowed for something called news.
There are probably only 1000 or 2000 active journalists today. Most just repeat, reprint, what they got fed by someone else. In some countried here are investigative journalists who have their own TV shows on (partly) publicly funded TV.
What's most important is that before blindly believing a report, one is well served to compare with other agencies who are funded by an opposing interest group. What one might misrepresent can be spelled out clearly in some other place. Relying on a single source for news is like trusting the computer clock in a distributed system.
> I'd like to think the solution is simple, require a license before you can call yourself a news agency
Is also something that has not worked very well, historically speaking. Who is going to give out those licenses? Government. Who does the news agency report on? Government.
Not the government alone, no. At some point we need to learn how to make such controlling bodies work, and I'd like to think there are already such control orgs which have proven to work.
It's not an issue of what I'm comfortable with. What I'm saying is that we can't ever get to a situation we're "comfortable with" without things like press regulation, which is simply not worth the price of admission.
Honestly, Reddit is much better than mainstream news. On Reddit when someone says something like this, someone else will be quick to call bullshit. The same is true for Hacker News btw.
This is exactly right. All I see now in mainstream news is corruption and undisclosed agendas, and just a general insult to intelligence.
When mainstream news is reporting stories about reality TV and sports "stars" from the same network, you know for sure it's all a big charade to sell advertising.
Of course, reddit has it's own problems as a source of truth... But there's always /r/thathappened to set us straight.
Huh. I guess since I signed up for it through their website so it was always $10/month for me, so I didn't notice.
But see, I was an iOS user paying $10/month for Spotify (because I paid on the web). Does Soundcloud offer this, or is it truly every iOS user has to pay through Apple for their subscription to Soundcloud Go, and thus have no choice but to pay more? It seems like it's the latter by the wording of their copy.
It probably won't affect the review process, but it will at least make targeting both browsers from a dev perspective potentially (hopefully!) trivial.
Since I'm not dependent on XUL-type apis, this is very relevant! The porting process was already not-bad, but anything to smooth it over for others would be cool. Thanks, i'll see where it is when I start my next project!
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
Often the problem being solved by this sort of thing isn't directly about making it easier to work with a language, but making it easier to hire developers. The hiring pool for developers who are very good with PHP is much much larger than a lot of other languages simply by virtue of it being an easy language to get started with.
This is also why Facebook has spent so much time and effort on things like HHVM and Hack.
Not counterpoints. The comment above states that the pool of very good PHP developers is larger. This implies easier hiring (capacity to learn a new language is not relevant, because it works both ways), which, among other reasons, would be because they'll be applying first to PHP positions; and secondly, a very good PHP developer is far from somebody who just started.
Let me rephrase. I am proposing that (barring very specific requirements which webdev doesn't justify) there's no such thing as a "good PHP developer". A good developer is a good developer, period.
A good developer will learn a new language in a reasonable amount of time and will be able to be productive and write good code in it.
A PHP-only (or X-only for that matter) developer is, by the definition above, not a good developer.
So why restrict oneself to some random pool of X-only people?
In general, I agree. But getting to mastery level takes time even for really good developers. Certain jobs require master-level application of that language's constructs for efficiency, security, or other reasons.
IIRC, one of Facebook's motivations for sticking with PHP was that it was the easiest language for everybody new to learn, meaning that they don't have to consider language expertise when hiring.
FWIW, they have released cool open source projects on Haskell and ocaml, so it's not like they've never considered any alternatives.
My understanding is that Facebook also had a MASSIVE amount of PHP code written. They then ported the performance bits to C++ and then realized they still had a huge amount invested in PHP, such that it wasn't worth it to switch off it entirely.
I also have a small suspicion that they wanted to stick to their roots a bit. But thats just me.
Imo: the only hard thing in webdev are handling the complexity of scaling and legacy.
In many cases the latter forces you to compromises in what you pick and the first one in compromises when you pick it.
I fully understand when people try to make work what they have.
Eg PHP by itself is a very fast powerful language. The tooling and several aspects (dynamic type etc) are exhausting for larger code bases but this is something which people inhouse can solve without requesting the full company to switch.
