Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
54
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Oh dog, they meant Fathrenheits! I was thinking 10 degrees Celsius hotter, which sounded even more insane (that's 18°F if my math is correct).

    Message to dear Americans: If you insists on using your freedom units, can you at least mark them properly? We have no way of knowing where you are from.

  • You can't possibly have every feature on a keyboard shortcut, even just all those various formatting features in Word for example where you often have to choose something from a list of options. And even if you somehow did manage to have a shortcut for everything, you'd still only remember those you use frequently enough.

    Not to mention, I'm pretty sure most of those shortcuts from 2003 still work today.

  • Ribbon is one of the best inventions Microsoft ever came up with and I will die on this hill. I'm old enough to remember very well the suffering when I was trying to find something in the classic menus or among the billion equal sized icons scattered across multiple toolbars in old MS Office versions. When Office 2007 came out, everything was suddenly so much easier to find, often with less clicks. I don't see any reason why I'd need the old style menu in addition to ribbon.

  • Does LibreOffice finally have ribbon or does it still look like MS Office 2003? You can hate on Microsoft all your want (and I'd gladly join you in most cases) and I get the privacy concerns but the Office suite is, after all those decades, still unmatched (well maybe except Outlook).

  • I know what a serif is. And I'm specifically not talking about that. I'm talking about this:

  • This is why I prefer sans-serif fonts that have lower case l's with a little bend on the bottom. For example the new default font in Office (Aptos) does exactly that.

  • The crazy part is that your brain is doing similar processing all the time too. Ever heard of the blindspot? Your brain has literally zero data there but uses "content-aware fill" to hide it from you. Or the fact, that your eyes are constantly scanning across objects and your brain is merging them into a panorama on the fly because only a small part of your field of vision has high enough fidelity. It will also create fake "frames" (look up stopped-clock illusion) for the time your eyes are moving where you should see a blur instead. There's more stuff like this, a lot of it manifests itself in various optical illusions. So not even our own eyes capture the "truth". And then of course the (in)accuracy of memory when trying to recall what we've seen, that's an entirely different can of worms.

  • Ah, thanks for the explanation.

    Over here, when you're applying for a loan, you're the one who has to bring the proof of your credit worthiness - typically your employment contract, bank statement etc. - they can't have it automatically without your consent. Also you have to prove your identity with your ID (either the physical card which is mandatory to have, or I guess nowadays a secured electronic identification if you were to do it remotely somehow). So I was genuinely lost in this comment thread, not knowing what the exact process was in America.

  • What does that mean?

  • After skimming through the article and at the abstract and introduction of the article in Nature, it seems that unlike those technique you mentioned, this is really a single-shot real time imaging.

  • It's a trap!

  • Laughs in Firefox

  • As a non-native speaker, I was kinda confused at first by this comic because in my head the vowels definitely didn't sound all the same. But I personally consider pronunciation of vowels in English to be one of the greatest mysteries in the universe, so no wonder.

  • I know they make shoes.

  • 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.