Majestic

Perhaps contained evidence against the former PM who tried to do a military coup and this is the way of getting rid of it? Perhaps protecting co-conspirators if not the top guy.

DVDs use the MPEG-2 video codec

correct.

and have a file size of 9 GB typically

Incorrect.

Though there exist dual layer or DVD9 commercial releases they were usually either double features like 2 movies on a disk or 4 TV episodes or uncommonly long films (Lord of the Rings for example).

MOST commercially released DVDs were DVD5 or about 4.7GB in size. And this is based on oh 20 years of sample size.

On DVD encoding: Things get tricky in comparisons because AVC introduced a lot of tricks to get lower bitrates while maintaining a certain psycho-visual level of passing image quality that MPEG2/4 simply didn't have. It may not pass detailed frame by frame study of corner elements but for most people without perceptible quality loss you can knock the bitrate down meaningfully beyond the pure compression efficiency improvements of the follow-on codecs.

"Now I'm sure you've all heard of timeshares, but we have something newer and better called Trump-shares. Now to show your loyalty to America we recommend you all buy in right now at the ground floor and for the next 5 hours we're going to explain the benefits and I know what you're thinking 'can I go home early if I buy in after the first hour' and the answer is yes!"

I think the home media collector usecase is actually a complete outlier in terms of what these formats are actually being developed for.

Well yeah given who makes it but it's what I care about. I couldn't care less about obscure and academic efforts (or the profits of some evil tech companies) except as vague curiosities. HEVC wasn't designed with people like me in mind either yet it means I can have oh 30% more stuff for the same space usage and the enccoders are mature enough that the difference in encode time between it and AVC is negligible on a decently powered server.

Transparency (or great visual fidelity period) also isn't likely the top concern here because development is driven by companies that want to save money on bandwidth and perhaps on CDN storage.

Which I think is a shame. Lower bitrates for transparency -should- be the goal. The goal should be to get streaming content to consumers at a very high quality, ideally close to or equivalent to UHD BluRay for 4k. Instead we get companies that bit-starve and hop onto these new encoders because they can use fewer bits as long as they use plenty of tricks to maintain a certain baseline of perceptual visual image quality that passes the sniff test for your average viewer so instead of getting quality bumps we just get them using less bits and passing the savings onto themselves with little meaningful upgrade in visual fidelity for the viewer. Which is why it's hard to care at all really about a lot of this stuff if it doesn't benefit the user in any way really.

And which will be so resource intensive to encode with compared to existing standards that it'll probably take 14 years before home media collectors (or yar har types) are able and willing to use it over HEVC and AV1. :\

As an example AV1 encodes to this day are extremely rare in the p2p scene. Most groups still work with h264 or h265 even those focusing specifically on reducing sizes while maintaining quality. By contrast HEVC had significant uptake within 3-4 years of its release in the p2p scene (we're on year 7 for AV1).

These greedy, race to the bottom device-makers are still fighting AV1. With people keeping devices longer and not upgrading as much as well as tons of people relying on under-powered smart-TVs for watching (forcing streaming services to maintain older codecs like h264/h265 to keep those customers) means it's going to take a depressingly long time to be anything but a web streaming phenomenon I fear.

You can I believe sign up with a wechat account as well. So you'd create that first, then use it to sign-in.

Disclaimer: I've not used that exact machine but have worked with similar Lenovo/Dell stuff.

On HP’s spec sheet it says the max HDD size is 2TB. Do I need to do anything to the BIOS to allow bigger drives?

Set mode to UEFI and/or GPT possibly. Some very old BIOS may simply refuse to boot off a drive that big while some may work as long as the boot stuff is in the first 2TB.

I’ve heard it’s possible to add a third 3.5in HDD in the DVD drive bay. Can anyone confirm? Do you need a bay adapter or whatever?

Often these form factors have a SATA plug for a DVD drive. Be aware that this one is usually only SATA 2 at best so slower than SATA 3 (only 3Gbps vs 6Gbps) and often only SATA 1 (1.5GBps) in fact given DVDs need significantly less than that. Not technically a huge limiting factor in anything but bursts and saturating the cache as mechanical hard drives are going to tend to struggle to get much above 300Mbps sustained write anyways but a consideration. I wouldn't put a RAID drive on it if possible as RAID drives should be on SATA adapters of matching speeds.

You can use a bay adapter and you can set the drive directly bare on the surface but it may induce vibrations and in theory for mechanical drives could shorten the life of the drive in addition to being annoyingly noisy. An SSD located there wouldn't have this problem as it's safe to set the SATA ones on a bare surface. Though if the SSD is getting heavy regular use you might consider still investing in some sort of heat solution like an aluminum dock for 2.5" drive to place it in and set that there.

As far as if you really want to set a 3.5" spinning disk HDD there without paying for a dock, at least put rubber between it and the metal of the case. Either little rubber standoffs or a flat rubber pad. This may induce heat issues but should solve the vibration one at least.

You can of course buy a PCIe SATA or SCSI card and connect to that to get higher speeds.

The other questions I'll leave to other people. Technically hardware RAID tends to come with lots of problems for home lab setups and software at the host OS tends to be more recommended as easier to recover with and less prone to various problems.

A Chinese social media app. A ton of US tiktokers fled to it when it seemed a ban was imminent.

In 1984 authoritarian country they gestures.

I think they should be pinned again. It reminds me to watch but also I and others learn of interesting new watch nights of things we enjoy already or meant to see but haven’t yet. It’s good for bringing the community together a bit.

Read the linked source FFS.

Me: Provides evidence that in decades past last century they were paid for and did dirty work of British intelligence, at no point were the people responsible cast out, at no point was this influence purged and processes and organs put in place to prevent this

Me: Also provides evidence they are in the bag as of the twenty-teens they were doing propaganda work for the British against Russia in coordination with the British state through cutouts

You: um acktually do you have any proof they're still doing that this month? No? Checkmate.

Yeah it's called a pattern of behavior. Why would they change? What would cause this? Sudden secret come to Jesus moment that fits your idealistic wants and needs in this particular argument? The burden of proof is on YOU and on THEM to show a sustained pattern of change. More than to show that but to admit, call out, and have a reckoning about their past behavior, bring it to the front, make everyone aware of it, apologize, and explain how they're changing and what they're specifically doing to prove this isn't happening.

Partnering with Tass in what way? As wire agencies? Carrying some of their stories? That's proof of nothing. You think because some org that's deep in with the intelligence apparatus of one state has some casual or professional cover level contact with a state media organ of a rival state that is proof of what? Impartiality? That they're actually Russian spies using British intelligence?

What I linked claims they agreed to use journalistic contacts within Russia to influence Russians and others within the CIS sphere for the interests and goals of the UK. If I was doing that I'd want contacts like that including contracts to carry out that work and legitimize my stories to my targets. I'd want to pretend to be friendly, professional and open while carrying out this work.

The new leaks illustrate in alarming detail how Reuters and the BBC – two of the largest and most distinguished news organizations in the world – attempted to answer the British foreign ministry’s call for help in improving its “ability to respond and to promote our message across Russia,” and to “counter the Russian government’s narrative.” Among the UK FCO’s stated goals, according to the director of the CDMD, was to “weaken the Russian State’s influence on its near neighbours.”

Reuters and the BBC solicited multimillion-dollar contracts to advance the British state’s interventionist aims, promising to cultivate Russian journalists through FCO-funded tours and training sessions, establish influence networks in and around Russia, and promote pro-NATO narratives in Russian-speaking regions.

In several proposals to the British Foreign Office, Reuters boasted of a global influence network of 15,000 journalists and staff, including 400 inside Russia.

No.

They are a British government and intelligence cut-out. That doesn't mean they always lie but they skew coverage, are manipulative, dishonest, and serve the interests of the British state. They've been that way for decades, receiving funding in the 1960s and 1970s from MI6.

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/

A series of official documents declassified in January 2020 revealed that Reuters was secretly funded by the British government throughout the 1960s and 1970s to assist an anti-Soviet propaganda organization run by the MI6 intelligence agency. The UK government used the BBC as a pass-through to conceal payments to the news group.

In the modern era they still target Russia under the direction and funding of the UK government. One cannot be in bed with spies like these and hope to hold them and their friends like the US, EU, etc to account.

The fourth estate in general in the west is highly compromised. Russia and China and many others openly fund state media and the west decries it as propaganda, but they never hide it. Whereas the west secretly funds, manipulates, and controls supposedly independent press and declares itself the free one while it lies to the rest of the world and their own populations.

As a wire agency Reuters does tend to have less room for deception than say Fox News due to a lot of short form news breaks. So in that regard they're more trustworthy than say CNN or Fox News but that doesn't mean a lot.