They weren't "missing": GPS-tagged red-footed falcons revealed that they migrate to a tiny communal roost in central Angola (“Falcopolis”) each February–March.
There, saved you a click (disappointed on National Geographic for that clickbaity headline).
Is this actually clickbait? The title is in the form of many clickbait title, but I'd argue it delivers; the article is more interesting than the title.
I suggest readers spend the click and the five minutes.
I just looked it up and MW’s definition of “missing” is “absent” or “lost” or “needed or expected but not included”. Dictionary.com says “absent, not found, or lost” and “lacking”. Wiktionary says “Not able to be located; gone, misplaced”, “Not present when it (they) should be”, and “Of an internal combustion engine: running roughly due to an occasional lack of a spark or other irregular fault.”
A common theme is that for something to be “missing,” it should not be where you expect it to be. But if your expectation is invalid, then it’s not “missing,” you simply have wrong expectations, which is the case with these falcons.
For example, I could say that there are a million falcons missing from my front yard right now. Do you think that’s a valid way to describe it?
You have a valid reason to expect that your keys are in the place you remember leaving them.
That’s not the case with large flocks of living animals. In that case, you’re simply making a category error in imagining that those living animals behave much like your keys.
> disappointed on National Geographic for that clickbaity headline
I don't think there's a single name brand from "before internet" that has survived without turning into a clickbait chaser of ad revenue above all else.
> every observation is public as soon as it is processed with no embargo
That's a big deal. Do you have any source for that? (I couldn't find it in the ones you linked). This is great for humanity as a whole, but... poor grad students who now need to rush to publish their papers even sooner.
Thank you! From talking to a contact working with JWST, it sounds a bit trickier in practice. The data are public, but with Roman the idea is that you must process them on their computers rather than download everything locally, and you pay for the compute/storage you use.
If their platform allows any kind of processing as it sounds then anyone could just dump the data. So I don't see why they would not allow downloads for local processing.
Reading between the lines, I assume they aren't reasonably capable of serving up ~TB scale data to hundreds (thousands? more?) of separate clients per day. The usual fix for this would be something like an AWS requester pays bucket.
To your question specifically, in such a scenario they would charge an obscene amount for the bandwidth so you would be strongly incentivized not to download hundreds of GB of data from them.
The questions is, how much are you willing to pay (because the cost of this is not free, especially in this cloud era), and what is the scientific return for access to the uncalibrated data? There is significantly more value in a well designed pipeline for everyone (which is where anyone who would work on the pipeline would slot in) than bespoke pipelines which are poorly built and unmaintainable.
Well, eastern dragons always reminded me more of a giant oarfish. And some central europe dragons weren't that far off, being described as flying snakes.
I think "every culture has a dragon" is kinda misleading.
"Every culture has a creature that got translated as a dragon" seems closer to the truth. The creatures themselves have a great variety between them.
It could definitely happen after a few years and yes I have already had cases where I had to trace the code again to understand them. It is still a major hassle though!
I occasionally build simple CLIs that are immediately intuitive but GUIs are just too much work.
As a counterexample, thanks to LLMs many long-form articles that get posted with clickbaity (but devoid of content) headlines that I would have ignored otherwise now get "read" (albeit indirectly, with the prompt "Summarize the insights of the article $ARTICLE_URL in an academic, dry, technical and information-dense way")
I'd argue it's not only not inconvenient, but also a great way of keeping your system clean of all the random system-wide dependencies you'll end up accumulating over the years.
Building ffmpeg itself from source is actually quite easy.
The hardest part IMO is getting the necessary codecs to work; this can take a little while. If you know what audio and video codecs you want and need, and if you get them installed properly, then compiling ffmpeg is really simple and straightforward. It works almost always for me, and I have compiled ffmpeg from source for like +10 or even +15 years.
For reference purposes, my current configure options are:
Probably more codecs could be added, and some options may not be necessary anymore (I changed this last ... years ago, too), but this works for the most part fairly well.
One focus I have is mostly on a few .mp4 files, and for these I think you kind of want x264 x265 and so forth (I think one more codec from google too or so). But it is really quite trivial once you are past the codecs step. You can also start simple with just a few codecs, e. g. one good audio codec and one good video codec. One reason I like to have ffmpeg support many codecs is so I can use mpv, which in itself is really awesome; I like it more than vlc, which is also ok though.
getting the stock ffmpeg to compile/build might be "easy", but once you start adding on additional codecs and other features that get you into dependency nightmares "easy" is not the word I would use. I have not been able to use the stock ffmpeg since forever. for example, i see no openssl enabled in your config. I see no freetype. I see you've disabled openjpeg. clearly, you and i use ffmpeg differently which just goes to show your "easy" is very misleading
Building ffmpeg can be simple or complex, depending on how you configure the dependencies and if it's dynamic or static and of course it's target outputs.
I'm currently working on a cross-platform builder that runs within Github Actions runners, but the Mac and Windows builds take up so many of my monthly minutes.
I had to build from source because of that CVE that dropped, couldn't do it so I just wrapped the whole thing and injected my own -version command, passed the scanners cleanly
For anyone vaguely familiar with ffmpeg, don't sleep on this video. Quite funny, and everything from `yadif` (which I dealt with today!) to mkvtoolnix to "But then it will explode if you have an apostrophe in your file name. Because it doesn't understand that."
If, like me, you're trying to compile it, don't forget to set the
flag in gcc, so: Then run it as:reply