> The video shows the ICE agent just straight up killing her unprovoked, against the narrative they're currently trying to setup that she was a terrorist
Don't try to bend the facts while there's literal video of the confrontation, as you yourself noted.
She was being commanded to step out of the vehicle (My speculation: to be arrested) and refused to do so while accelerating the vehicle quickly with an officer standing in front of her vehicle. If the drivers intent was to commit vehicular homicide or not is obviously unknown (and at this point unknowable), it was not unprovoked in any way.
Intentionally or not she was accelerating her vehicle toward someone. Regardless of if the reaction of the agent was justified, it was 100% provoked by the driver.
Just before the agents came out of their car another ICE car passed in front of her car. She was waving the agents to pass her. She could not back-up, because there were people standing/walking behind her car. She was not blocking the road, but nevertheless the ICE agents came out of their car to confront her. Context does matter.
After the women got shot, the agent who shot lost the scene taking the weapon with him, which is against all regulations. Other ICE agents prevented medical help from a doctor who identified himself as such and the blocked an ambulance, making them complicit with the murder as she might have been saved if she had gotten medical treatment immediately.
Seems like the car was turning relatively slowly away from the ICE officer. At 00:18 in the video when you can hear the gunshots, he's not in the path of the vehicle. Even if he somehow thought the vehicle was heading towards him, it looks like he could have easily stepped back.
If a masked federal law enforcement officer can shoot someone with impunity in a situation that could have easily been avoided, then we are in a very dangerous place.
while accelerating the vehicle quickly with an officer standing in front of her vehicle
This is false. He started drawing his gun while she was still in reverse (to turn and drive away) and was not 'in front of the vehicle' but approaching the front left of the vehicle. Nor was she 'accelerating the vehicle quickly.' You are simply being untruthful.
Frankly, with multiple masked goons pulling weapons approaching, any evasive/defensive maneuvers would have been fully justified.
She did none of the above. You didn't watch the video. Her tires were turned away from the officer and said officers were to the side of her vehicle, well and clear from any sort of harm.
How about the nuance where she initially tried to wave them through while they were in their vehicle and instead of going, they got out and attempted to force her from her vehicle. This is murder of a citizen by the government with no cause.
I use my browser for most PDFs. But for PDFs that have a lot of vector graphics and are over 50-100mb, the browser viewer is very slow to load and render the pages.
Even zooming in on a part of a drawing can take 10-15 seconds in the browser which is pretty disruptive.
Sumatra has no issues with 200mb+ PDFs, or ones with complex drawings.
These are all engineering drawings such as mechanical, electrical, and architectural drawings, so mine might not be a use case everyone has.
> But for PDFs that have a lot of vector graphics and are over 50-100mb
I also have opened Lenovo Thinkpad manuals, hahaha. For those who haven't, it's quite amazing, really: the SVG images are exports of the full CAD model of the laptop without any culling of elements that aren't visible. And I know this because I used to see each indiduad screw be rendered slowly afer the other whenever pdf.js tried to render one of those bad boys.
Same with Rockwell (Allen-Bradley) PLCs.
You download a program to the PLC, and upload a program from a PLC.
I always assumed the naming confusion for those was just a matter of perspective; if you are thinking about a "download" from the perspective of the PLC receiving the file or the user sending the file.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Why should I waste my valuable time to answer anything meaningful to an obvious propaganda comment? Such comments are what are degrading HN discussion.
Isn't the real problem astroturfing, shilling, brigading, being a government agent, and the like?
The person who posted the big wall of text that seems plausible superficially said a bunch of really dumb or dishonest things. At best they're disingenuous, they're doing things like averaging advancements per day, in some places lines literally aren't moving and others people are advancing unopposed, averaging some things is fundamentally dishonest or a fundamental misunderstanding. There are other issues with their comment, but these are all the kinds of mistakes and an informed person participating in honest discourse doesn't make.
People arguing in bad faith need to be called out not tolerated.
Despite saying that I'm arguing in bad faith, you actually have the only substantive response to my post. My interpretation of your comments is that either:
1. I am incorrectly interpreting the models because I am assuming aggregate/averaged rates of advance across a very large (~1000km) frontage. Or:
2. The models are incorrect if they expect rates of advance averaged across such a large front to produce reliably realistic results.
The task, then, is for me to dig back through the specifics of the models (I've got Dupuy's books and a couple of publications and related DoD-internal wargaming rulesets based on Relative Combat Power Analysis) to see if they articulate the scale at which they break down. I do recall reading that QJM was used to estimate the outcome of Desert Storm and produced surprisingly accurate results for that campaign. Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to apply the model to the current stage of the Ukrainian conflict.
In particular you seem critical of the values I suggested for the "rate of advance" variable. I suspect that even if you dropped that value to 0.1km/day or even 0.....the models would still suggest a highly skewed rate of Ukrainian losses due to the lopsided-balance of fires assets in Russia's favor. The point is to get people to do the math themselves, and to get them thinking about the second and third order effects of a country with 1/3 of its attackers manpower pool losing men at a greater-than-equal rate.
As an aside, it's weird to me that a few paragraphs is derided as a "Wall of Text" but I guess it is to a generation who's baseline of social media engagement is mobile phones and Twitter. I developed my habits of internet discourse on places like bbs.stardestroyer.net in the late 90s: everyone was on a desktop, and everyone was expected to write long-form explanations for their positions, preferably with references.
This is how I write many of my posts on HN, twenty years later.
And yet sometimes that's exactly what's happening -- and it needs to be called out.
Not the "foreign agents" part; that's your insinuation of what the parent commenter said. But there's an unusual degree commonality to the talking points and flat-out factually wrong narratives that people continually post about this conflict -- such that some of them (like "Ukraine wanted to negotiate, but...") we literally hear several times a day.
It doesn't matter what sources they are uncritically adopting these garbage narratives from. It's just propaganda, straight up, and quite obviously so.
I knew the Titanic was discovered in the mid 80s, but was pretty sure it was not not by this submersible, but a ship pulling a camera. So that took the entire sentence into question and that could IMHO very well been an AI that merged nuclear sub in the 60s and Titanic in the 80s because they were both deep sea operations by this vessel or something.
this is the kind of error humans make because we generate text letter by letter. LLMs generate text in whole words or meaningful fragments of whole words (tokens). unless 1986 is unusually statistically similar to 1968, an LLM is unlikely to make that mistake.
Don't try to bend the facts while there's literal video of the confrontation, as you yourself noted. She was being commanded to step out of the vehicle (My speculation: to be arrested) and refused to do so while accelerating the vehicle quickly with an officer standing in front of her vehicle. If the drivers intent was to commit vehicular homicide or not is obviously unknown (and at this point unknowable), it was not unprovoked in any way.
Intentionally or not she was accelerating her vehicle toward someone. Regardless of if the reaction of the agent was justified, it was 100% provoked by the driver.