NoRodent @ NoRodent @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

116

Joined

2 yr. ago

I know they make shoes.

I mean, that idea isn't mine, nor new: https://youtu.be/dechvhb0Meo?t=87

If they start building vertical cinemas, that's when we lose.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

They also should not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Dude, what the hell you're onto?

1280 x 800 is 16:10

That's exact.

1280 x 720 is 16:9

Also exact.

1280 x 768 is also 16:10.

In the link you provided, it literally says it's 5:3. It even has its own line in the infographics. And while the article is titled "List of common resolutions", it looks more like an exhaustive list of almost any resolution that has been ever used in any kind of consumer device. It's definitely not limited just to standard computer monitors so that table isn't really that relevant to the topic of the discussion.

Also show me a monitor with the 1280 x 768 resolution that's currently available on sale.

You're picking up some extremely rare cases to make an argument that your initial statement about "usually different aspect ratio" was correct but that's not how it works. That's just moving goalposts.

Type without rhythm and it won't attract the worm.

Nah there are more

5:4, 8:5, 21:9, 64:27. And more

I already mentioned 5:4 and 8:5 equals 16:10.
21:9 and 64:27 are just ultrawide formats which I also mentioned and you can't really mistake those for 16:9, can you? Same goes for 5:4 and 4:3 which are rather square-ish (4:3 was typical for old CRT monitors and TVs).

And these aren’t exact. There’s fault tolerance, so to speak.

I don't think "fault tolerance" means what you think it means.

You can have slightly different sizes rectangles between several different 16:9 monitors.

Are you telling me that there are monitors that don't have square pixels? Or that the number of (square) pixels doesn't give an exact 16:9 ratio?

Anyway, yes, there are more aspect ratios out there but the important thing is how common they are. I just looked at the biggest local e-shop and if I try to filter parameters by resolution, I get this:

The number in the parenthesis next to the resolution is the number of products. (Note that this is only showing 1609 out of the total 1629 items - if I scroll down, there are 20 other options which all have 1 product each so I took the liberty to ignore those as those are ultra rare items (and some of them aren't even regular monitors but just some specialized displays. Even here, for example the 2200×1024px is an e-ink touch screen)).

I simplified each ratio to the simplest form, so those are exact ratios (but for some added a ratio with X:9 or X:10 in the denominator in parenthesis for easier comparison to those more standard formats). Turns out that 1379 out of 1609 monitors are exactly 16:9, so that's 85.7%. The biggest variety are among the ultrawides which I colored in purple but again, those are pretty much unmistakable. Just like the 5:4 and 4:3 in blue.
So realistically you have to watch out for the red ratios where 1379 out of 1426 are 16:9, that's 96.7%.
So I really wonder how you came to the conclusion that "monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV".
Now of course one e-shop isn't a completely representative sample but I hope we can agree that the numbers will be in the right ballpark. Feel free to make your own statistics from a different source.

fault tolerance

monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV

What? Aren't like 90% of monitors and 99% of TVs 16:9? There are a few monitors that are 16:10, some extremely rare 5:4 and 4:3 and then there are the ultrawide monitors which are obviously a different aspect ratio but saying that monitors are "usually" a different aspect ratio is factually incorrect. If you're deciding between a 4K TV and 4K monitor, then there's no danger of accidentally buying something of different format.

I mean, there's /r/SubSimulatorGPT2 that's been running for years... Although that one was at least hilarious to read because at that stage the AI was in the sweet spot of being simultaneously coherent while making total lapses in logic.

Then I guess it's only in some countries. I've seen articles saying it wasn't available in Europe as a whole but maybe that's old news.

I'm just glad Copilot isn't available in Europe.

I mean yeah, but on the other hand with hydrogen you have much more control over when and where you use the electricity as you can choose to manufacture most of it during off-peak periods and when renewables create excess energy. Then you can transport it by pipes or by trucks/ships without overwhelming the electric grid.

Goodbye Bluesky

Yeah, that's no moon.

Which is great when you already have established bands and albums you want to listen to. Not so great for discovering new music and genres which is where Spotify really shines for me.

By they way, I just found out that they removed the button, but typing cache:www.example.com into Google still redirects you to the cached version (if it exists). But who knows for how long. And there's the question whether they'll continue to cache new pages.

Were so many people using it to avoid ads?

I doubt that as well. There are much better ways to deal with ads. I always only used it when the content on the page didn't exist anymore or couldn't be accessed for whatever reason.

But I suspected this was coming, they've been hiding this feature deeper and deeper in the last few years.

Well that really sucks because it was often the only way to actually find the content on the page that the Google results "promised". For numerous reasons - sometimes the content simply changes, gets deleted or is made inaccessible because of geo-fencing or the site is straight up broken and so on.

Yes, there's archive.org but believe it or not, not everything is there.

Carefully organized sand.^[1]