This is not true. Firefox readily supports blocking all video autoplay (Permissions → Autoplay has three choices: Allow Audio and Video; Block Audio; Block Audio and Video), which I gladly use. And I really wish animated images were treated the same, because it’s a bug that they’re not, but a well-entrenched one that’s nigh-impossible to fix.
Thatʾs what I said. I was correcting the parent comment that said that you couldnʾt block autoplay of muted videos. I block all video autoplay, and wish I could block animated image autoplay also.
This is the default, but some media sites have made autoplay videos _the_ next-gen whole page popups, so I gladly switched to block all.
It also saves a lot of bandwidth.
Maybe this is a stupid request, but I'd like <img> (or maybe the newer <picture> tag) to take a video but with autoplay=true, loop=true, muted=true and controls=false when given a video source
Safari already supports playing MP4 in <img> tags [1]. I think that's how "animated GIF" type of animations should be handled in the Web.
It's silly that there are video formats with excellent compression but image formats want to reinvent it (such as animated PNG, animated WebP, animated AVIF...). It just adds extra complexity to image formats.
Ah, that seems exactly like I was asking for, unfortunately in the 3 years since Safari added it, I can't find much pick up on it. I found this on Chromium but with not much progress. It seems their code path doesn't quite let img decode a video, I assumed it would be as easy as creating a fake <video muted loop autoplay> but it's probably much more messy.
Nor in documents : many PDF readers (including browsers ??) don't seem to be able to read MP4 in PDFs, EPUB doesn't support MP4, and MHTML has been discontinued for some weird reason (at least Libre Office displays MP4 in ODT just fine, but it has other issues). Maybe this is due to the patents in MP4 ? And GIF is supported but is just too big.
They should not have released it without a much longer open comment period, if they expected anyone else to implement it. VP8 had barely just come out of hiding from a private company and hadn't been reviewed.
I have known the author of WebP (he previously worked on XviD) and I'm pretty sure it was his pet project.
The Windows "Photos" app doesn't support webp, at least not without an extension, so it doesn't associate the file extension with the app. Chrome can display these photos, so it registers the webp file extension.
> Well there were pretty heavy gun regulations that were enacted under Obama.
No there weren't.
> I guess Obama did allow cartels to have guns by continuing Fast & Furious so you're half right.
You're half-right because of this one, the Obama administration circumvented federal law to allow known prohibited persons to buy guns and then let them take the guns across the border. over 1200 guns were lost to known organized crime without even getting Mexican gov't permission.
Oh absolutely, some of that was also highly objectionable IMHO.
I want to be clear vigorous protest is a democratic right, including some civil disobedience, but you have to be prepared to accept the consequences and responsibility for your actions. I think the vast majority of the BLM protesters in the summer and the MAGA crowd on Wednesday were intent on peaceful demonstration. It’s the violent assholes on both sides that need reigning in.
> It’s the violent assholes on both sides that need reigning in.
Agreed. However, a lot of the aggressive, confrontational rhetoric on both the left and right implicitly pushed the more action-oriented folks into making bad choices. So many of the "peaceful" protestors and even folks at home ramp up the rhetoric to the point where some confrontation is almost inevitable. Trump's rhetoric is a great example, and obviously extremely influential on the right. But while they're not as individually influential as Trump, there are firebrands on the left who do the same (AOC, Maxine Waters, Rashida Tlaib, many more on the state and local level).
And then even partisans who weren't engaging in aggressive rhetoric often excused it as understandable, which creates a nice cover for the folks engaged in violence.
Legal responsibility, of course, ultimately rests with the rioters who did the deeds. But moral responsibility is more diffuse. Many, many more partisans need to examine the role that they've played in creating the conditions for conflict, on both the left and right.
Improvised explosive devices were found in several locations in Washington, D.C. A device suspected to be a pipe bomb was discovered adjacent to a building containing Republican National Committee (RNC) offices. A search of the nearby area found another suspected pipe bomb under a bush at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters.[4] The devices were believed to have been planted prior to the riots.[124] Both the RNC building and the DNC headquarters are a few blocks from the Capitol.
An explosive device is found at the R.N.C., and the D.N.C. is evacuated.
An explosive device was found at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee in Washington and the nearby headquarters of the Democratic National Committee was evacuated after the discovery of a suspicious package on Wednesday, according to three people briefed on the discoveries.
The device that was found at the R.N.C. was a pipe bomb that was successfully destroyed by a bomb squad, according to an official for the R.N.C.
Information is still being uncovered and reported. Since I'd posted my comment above:
An Alabama man allegedly parked a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle and a handgun just two blocks form the United States Capitol Building, according to federal prosecutors.
Given conditions, volitility, and expressed intent, two blocks proximity to the US Capitol building, on the Capitol complex, and directly across from the Cannon House Office Building, the location is well within the security zone of concern for the Capitol and was clearly associated with the insurgents and rioters.
Close only counts in horse shoes and... lawn darts. People are making the assumption that the people who entered the Capitol building brought pipe bombs in with them. This is not true, according to both your version of the facts and my version of the facts.
This event is serious. You owe it to yourself to be accurate and informed. You never know who is using you as their news source.
1. I did not claim the bombs were in the Capitol building itself. You are arguing against a case I am not making. The snarky question you asked was clearly answered in the comment you replied to. The insinuation was gratuitous and unnecessary.
But wait, there's more.
2. I do cite and quote reputable sources noting that a) there were in fact multiple bombs, b) that we now know of, c) discovered to date, d) in very near proximity to the Capitol building, e) within the greater Capitol complex, f) posing threats to persons and assets g) with hostile intent.
3. The thousands of insurgents active with the attacks on the Capitol building and complex demonstrably included people carrying and placing bombs within at the very least two blocks of the Capitol building itself and on the same block as Capitol office buildings in which congressional members and staff were lkely present and/or sheltering.
4. There is much we simply don't know as those actually entering the Capitol building proper are not fully identified or known, were not arrested immediately, and certainly have not been fully checked, searched, or inventoried. One person of interest in the Senate Chamber was carrying zip ties and likely a firearm, dressed in paramilitary gear: https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/crime/2021/01/08...
5. A false precision limited to proved facts and ignoring, dismissing, or petily hair-splitting distintions in an emergent situations is itself actively dangerous. This discussion is reminiscent of Chernobyl, "3.6 Roentgen, not great, not terrible", rejection of likely, and as it turned out, actual circumstances in the no-longer extant reactor core.[1] The failure in evidence was due to circumstances far beyond the capacities of existing reporting capacities. We face similar circumstances here.
Failure to maintain situational awareness, grasp magnitude, and remain ahead of developments is a common element of crises situations. At Chernobyl in 1986. In the Falklands crisis as the HMS Sheffield was attacked in 1982[2]. At Banqiao in 1975.[3] At Hiroshima in 1945.[4] The causes are multiple: failures of imagination, failures of understanding, incapacitation of observers, disruption, destruction, or overwhelming of sensors, communications, reporting and response systems.
For the moment, we cannot say with certainty that bombs were or were not actually in or on the Capitol building itself. Multiple bombs, possibly placed by multiple parties or units, acting either in concert or independently, were found in the immediate vicinity, close enough to be inside the Capitol within minutes or seconds. The possibility that explosives were inside the building is high, the evidence-based demonstration of this may be years away, possibly never established (though forensics detection may be able to establish likelihood more clearly soon). In terms of risk, post mortem assessment, and future preparedness, with furthe similar events likely within days, operating on the ASSUMPTION that explosives were or could be introduced to the Capitol building and environs is the right thing to do with absolute crystalline clarity.
No, I cannot say with reasonable certainty that there were. Nor have I.
You cannot say there were not.
The best that can be said is that there is as yet no immediate evidence, but a strong possibility, and s clearly demostrated material risk
This event is serious. You owe it to yourself to be realistic and reasonable.
Preciseness is extremely important. How many people are on social media right now calling the people who entered the Capitol terrorists because they assumed they carried bombs into the building?!
From my side, you are wrong. The stances you think I have are probably inaccurate too. Your side seems to always lock us into a prison of two ideas without letting us speak for ourselves.
The extreme assumptions and generalizations don't help. There are many of us that don't agree with you but don't exactly line up with Republicans or even Trump supporters at times.
Many Trump supporters are Libertarians that do not agree full with Republican ideals completely, but it's the closest home.
Alt right terrorists Steven Carrillo and Robert Justus murdered FPS Officer David Underwood in Oakland during the BLM protests. Steven Carrillo then murdered Sheriff Sergeant Damon Gutzwiller when officers showed up at his house to arrest him.
They also seriously injured another FPS Officer during the first attack.
Welcome to politics, DT's words are constantly taken out of context and used to enflame the masses.
That's why this censorship ordeal is scary. Both sides deserve to be heard so people can listen, hear both sides, sift through the bullshit and decide for themselves.
I don't have a right to be heard, that's not what free speech is. I also don't have the right to insist on other people publishing my views for me (corporations are people now, remember). And I certainly don't need to feel validated by apps.
You’re right. Everyone is definitely capable of thinking for themselves. No one would ever, say, violently storm the nation’s capitol because they believed propaganda about election fraud.
"Bob should die" should be allowed to exist and is. It can be said jokingly, yes it's bad taste but not credible.
"Bob, I am coming to kill you" or "Bob I'll kill you if you don't do X for me" a court would say is probably a credible threat, which is already illegal.
Why do we want to shift the responsibility of deciding how to police speech to private companies?
You'd be surprised that Trump supporters are outside the Republican realm. If you spent 5 minutes on TDW you'd see they hate most establishment Republicans. This isn't new either, it started with Ron Paul and then the Tea Party movement.
I'd say overall the majority on TDW are leaning more towards libertarian than conservative. Certain things like freedom of speech, 2nd amendment rights, limited government and spending are shared ideals. Other things like pro-marijuana, pro-life, Christianity are depicted and respected but differ between supporters and less popular then the ideals everyone agrees on.
WebP afaik has a more limited feature set.