Some of these video codecs have pathological cases that might be maxing out your video while doing the decoding. If you're only using it as a media server, that might exceed the (possibly age-degraded) capacity of your power supply. Replacing the power supply might help in that case.

It's also possible that something in a particular frame is triggering a bug in your driver and crashing that way. In that case, your best bet might be to transcode the video to a different codec or something.

Maybe your particular video download is from an entirely trustworthy source, but it's not unheard of that untrustworthy folks will modify a file with the intent of causing this to happen.

I don't think it's that independents in general are embarrassed republicans, but that independents who constantly talk about being independents are embarrassed republicans. I know some independents who are to the left of democrats on most things (Sanders types), for example.

Independents who are left of democrats usually just call themselves leftists though.

I've always found it interesting that these tech infra companies' stock tends to rise in the immediate aftermath of these outages. My best guess is that people see the effect of the outage and say "Hey, this company I've never heard of sure seems to have a lot of customers!"

To be fair I've benefited from that in the past; this is an observation of my own that doesn't represent the views of any of my current or former employers.

I mean, sure. The problem is that ignoring Republican agency is seemingly incubated by both parties' philosophies (such as they are). It's a common "conservative" vice to blame problems on those you identify less with (right now, Democrats). It's a common "liberal" vice to put the onus to fix a problem on those you identify more with (also Democrats). Therefore, most people's solution to any given problem involves putting pressure on Democrats. Putting pressure on Republicans "doesn't help", either because they have nothing to do with the problem or because they obviously will never fix it.

Part of me thinks this is fundamental to the human condition, but most of me thinks it isn't. This doesn't seem to have happened in the FDR era, or the Nixon era, for example. I think it's just fallout from the post-Reagan coalitions in the US political system.

Others responding to my speech by exercising their own rights to free speech and free association as individuals does not violate my right to free speech. One can make an argument that corporations doing those things (e.g. your Play Store example) is sufficiently different in kind to individuals doing it -- and a lot of people would even agree with that argument! It does, however, run afoul of current first amendment jurisprudence.

Either way, this is categorically different from China's policies on e.g. Tibet, which is a centrally driven censorship decision whose goal is to suppress factual information.

> Either way, this is categorically different from China's policies on e.g. Tibet, which is a centrally driven censorship decision whose goal is to suppress factual information.

You'll quickly run into issues and accusations of being a troll in the "free world" if you bring up inconvenient factual information on Tibet. The Dalai Lama asking a young boy to suck on his tongue for example.

Pretty sure that event was all over the western web as a gross "wtf" moment. I don't remember anyone, or any organization, that talked about it being called a troll.

It was only surprising to people because he was hyped up as a progressive figure in a liberation struggle, not a deposed autocrat.

This is a failure of imagination. There are plenty of things that are more unjust than that.

This argument has always seemed odd to me. The 17th amendment first took effect in 1915, and the whole Senate had been directly elected by 1919. Are we really going to claim that the late 1910's are when things really went off the rails? For example, to your specific point here, it seems unlikely that this made amending the Constitution harder. Excluding the Bill of Rights and the 27th Amendment (each a special case for its own reason), there have actually been more amendments in the fewer years after the 17th was enacted.

It's also unclear why one would expect that the Senate would be less partisan if its membership were selected by state legislatures. State legislators have a lot more partisan loyalty than the rest of us, both because they tend to be more ideological and because they are deeply dependent on the party for future career prospects.

It doesn't really matter if they're doing that for this purpose, though. Cloudflare (or any other AS) has no fine control of where your packets to their anycast IPs will actually go. A given server's response packets will only go to one of their PoPs. It's just that which one will depend on server location and network configuration (and could change at any time). Even if multiple of their PoPs tried to fetch forward from the same server, all but one would be unable to maintain a TCP connection without tunneling shenanigans.

Tunneling shenanigans are fine for ACKs, but it's inefficient and therefore pretty unlikely that they are doing this for ingress object traffic.

I used to have so much trouble with pants (I need 30-34 in inches, 86.4cm long and about 76cm waist). No store had that size. I once got to the point where I considered leaning into my Scottish heritage and just wearing a kilt.

The internet has alleviated that for me, but if it hasn't for you -- look for pants with a large hem, and learn some basic sewing skills. It's occasionally possible to add an inch or more of length with the right pair.

Those few degrees matter if your knees are already brushing the back of the seat in front of you. It matters how tall you are, how much of that is in your legs, how big your feet are (the more you need to bend your knees, the higher they will be), and it also varies depending on seat design and layout.

For others like me, one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage: small handbags only. No backpacks, briefcases, or anything else big enough to hold a laptop. Then, you can put your feet in that space. This lowers my knees by 1-2 inches depending on the plane, which really matters. It's the only thing that helps significantly, aside from paying for premium economy. Doesn't help with the claustrophobia, but there's not much to be done about that.

The other things I've tried (that don't reliably work) are leaning forward from the seat back (to pull my knees back) and slouching slightly (so that the inevitable recline compresses the seat back into my knees rather than bashing them). The former saves my knees, but sacrifices my back. The latter kind of helps during the flight, but walking will still hurt the next day.

> one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage [...] Then, you can put your feet in that space

Oh, interesting. I've always done that, it never really occurred to me that others might not. Even if you have a bigger bag you can always take it out during the flight to make space for your feet. That, plus crossing my legs allows me to have my legs flat against the chair (and therefore my knees well below the level where the person in front reclining would make much difference).

Well, it can be annoying to limit oneself to a smaller under-seat bag. Taking the bigger bag out during the flight uses up even more of the available space. I've generally got nowhere to put it except behind my legs (which cramps things a lot): on my lap doesn't work if I want to actually use anything in that bag.

It's easier to just pack my laptop (plus anything I might use during the flight) in my overhead bin carry-on. It's a real pain to actually get anything out of there, but a paperback book or ebook reader will fit in a coat pocket or small handbag -- and that's all I truly need on the plane. Plus, the airline won't be able to force you to check your overhead carry-on that way since the laptop has lithium batteries in it.