No one will ever be woke enough, so don't even bother trying
invite response
2022 Jun 2, 6:19pm 3,304 views 48 comments
by Patrick ➕follow (55) 💰tip ignore
https://notthebee.com/article/two-more-thrown-from-the-wokeness-gerbil-wheel
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
41
SunnyvaleCA
2022 Aug 25, 1:41pm
richwicks says
That seems to be a "you" problem. Well, that and your software. The rest of the world moved to using scaling factors on commodity-level computers a decade ago. Heck, the original NeXT machines of the late 1980s used "display postscript," which had a floating-point coordinate system and theoretical resolution independence—the software that drove the screen image also generated the bitonal raster image for the 400 DPI laser printer.
Having said that, I've had a 4K monitor, and the damned thing is so fucking huge, I wouldn't even see I opened a web browser on the right of my screen as I was looking at my left, so I would open another instance. 2K is where I'm comfy with, even 2 2K screens, 4K is too much.
That seems to be a "you" problem. Well, that and your software. The rest of the world moved to using scaling factors on commodity-level computers a decade ago. Heck, the original NeXT machines of the late 1980s used "display postscript," which had a floating-point coordinate system and theoretical resolution independence—the software that drove the screen image also generated the bitonal raster image for the 400 DPI laser printer.
42
SunnyvaleCA
2022 Aug 25, 1:50pm
richwicks says
I'm interpreting that as: 1080p is what people 2000 years from now will be using for viewer screens.
My response is...
Absolutely not. It's already difficult to find 1080p screens for TVs larger than 32 inches. Few consumers will pay more for a low-sales-volume 1080p screen when they could get a 2160p screen that is still capable of handling 1080 input by scaling. 1080p is usually fine for motion video of the real world, but why limit what you can do with the screen and also pay more?
1080p is what people 2000 years will be using for viewer screens now.
I'm interpreting that as: 1080p is what people 2000 years from now will be using for viewer screens.
My response is...
Absolutely not. It's already difficult to find 1080p screens for TVs larger than 32 inches. Few consumers will pay more for a low-sales-volume 1080p screen when they could get a 2160p screen that is still capable of handling 1080 input by scaling. 1080p is usually fine for motion video of the real world, but why limit what you can do with the screen and also pay more?
43
SunnyvaleCA
2022 Aug 25, 2:00pm
Ha! Well that ^^^ was way off topic of wokeness!
Anway, I've been saying for years that there is seemingly no limit to wokeness. For the pushers of wokeness, there's no goal other than to push wokeness, so there's also no end. After one woke goal is achieved, just make up some more. This phenomenon is manifested by the ever-increasing jumble of letters in the LGBTQXIASDF!@# pushers.
Anway, I've been saying for years that there is seemingly no limit to wokeness. For the pushers of wokeness, there's no goal other than to push wokeness, so there's also no end. After one woke goal is achieved, just make up some more. This phenomenon is manifested by the ever-increasing jumble of letters in the LGBTQXIASDF!@# pushers.
45
richwicks
2022 Sep 28, 6:27pm
richwicks
2022 Sep 28, 6:27pm
SunnyvaleCA says
Yeah, it's stupid.
I am not surprised there's higher resolutions, but for codecs, 1080p is "good enough". You have a limited number of receptors in your eyes.
People who claim they can tell the difference between a 1080p video and a 4K video, played at the same frame rate, where it's recording an actual video (not computer generated) are like the same dumb assholes that claim that they can differentiate between a 16 bit audio file and a 32 bit audio file.
I worked for RCA. There's a REASON they picked these numbers. There's 1080 lines, why not 1024? That's a power of 2, seems more logical, doesn't it?
You can display a 1080p film IN A THEATER and the audience won't notice it.
Let me impress the difference we have between NTSC and what is modern high def. This is a NTSC picture:
That was the resolution of a NTSC television until around 2005. Well, approximately, from left to right, that's the encoding that was used by DVDs, but there are really no "pixels" in NTSC. The picture is actually a little big, because it's ignoring vertical and horizontal blanking intervals.
For a computer, you want sharp images for text, for for a photograph or a film? 1080p is basically the maximum resolution a normal human being can discern. Now, maybe you're a mutant, but unlikely.
4K is ridiculous, but I expect it to become the standard over time. 8K is pure stupidity but I know it exists. 8k has no technical reason to exist, perhaps for VR but that's only so you can rotate your head. That would be the resolution of the ENTIRE picture, both what you can see, and what's behind you in a complete immersion.
Absolutely not. It's already difficult to find 1080p screens for TVs larger than 32 inches.
Yeah, it's stupid.
I am not surprised there's higher resolutions, but for codecs, 1080p is "good enough". You have a limited number of receptors in your eyes.
People who claim they can tell the difference between a 1080p video and a 4K video, played at the same frame rate, where it's recording an actual video (not computer generated) are like the same dumb assholes that claim that they can differentiate between a 16 bit audio file and a 32 bit audio file.
I worked for RCA. There's a REASON they picked these numbers. There's 1080 lines, why not 1024? That's a power of 2, seems more logical, doesn't it?
You can display a 1080p film IN A THEATER and the audience won't notice it.
Let me impress the difference we have between NTSC and what is modern high def. This is a NTSC picture:
That was the resolution of a NTSC television until around 2005. Well, approximately, from left to right, that's the encoding that was used by DVDs, but there are really no "pixels" in NTSC. The picture is actually a little big, because it's ignoring vertical and horizontal blanking intervals.
For a computer, you want sharp images for text, for for a photograph or a film? 1080p is basically the maximum resolution a normal human being can discern. Now, maybe you're a mutant, but unlikely.
4K is ridiculous, but I expect it to become the standard over time. 8K is pure stupidity but I know it exists. 8k has no technical reason to exist, perhaps for VR but that's only so you can rotate your head. That would be the resolution of the ENTIRE picture, both what you can see, and what's behind you in a complete immersion.
46
GNL
2022 Sep 28, 6:29pm
GNL
2022 Sep 28, 6:29pm
Patrick says
He was a senior at the HS my wife attended as a freshmen.
https://slaynews.com/news/woke-hollywood-celeb-comes-to-grim-realization-i-wont-be-woke-enough-for-the-left-one-day/
He was a senior at the HS my wife attended as a freshmen.
47
richwicks
2022 Sep 28, 6:34pm
richwicks
2022 Sep 28, 6:34pm
SunnyvaleCA says
I know about the stupidity of the retinal display. It would be useful for people with perfect eyesight that also use magnifying glasses with their phone.
Fortunately we don't live in that world.
Apple makes a lot of things that have "better specs" that just don't matter. It's a sort of cult. Sure, it's better, but a person can't experience its superiority. The screen has more pixels than the eye has cones and rods, and it is more costly, it requires more computational power, it drains the battery, all this stupidity just so they have a MARKETING point - then to add insult to injury, they LITERALLY glue the battery in, make it impossible for 3rd parties to repair it, and slow down the operating system to encourage upgrades. They're just an asshole company.
I have a piece of shit "Motorola 5G one", literally one of the cheapest phones I could purchase. It has a TWO DAY battery. I'd rather it be lighter and smaller, than have this ridiculous battery. It's just extra weight. It's probably the same size as the latest iPhone, but it doesn't have stupid useless specs, it's designed for functionality, I'm SURE the processor is slower and there's less cores - it's more than adequate. It's just a phone.
I don't think you've programmed a smartphone for the last decade. There's a nominal coordinate system (all floating-point values) and a scale factor. The original iPhone (for example) used a scale factor of 1.0x, but newer iPhones have used 2x and 3x "natively" as well as some funky scale factors to help out people who would like a magnified view. In addition to the pixel density dictating a 2x or 3x scale factor, the screens have gotten physically bigger, so that the original 480x320 iPhone is dwarfed by the 2778x1284 pixel iPhone 13 Pro Max.
I know about the stupidity of the retinal display. It would be useful for people with perfect eyesight that also use magnifying glasses with their phone.
Fortunately we don't live in that world.
Apple makes a lot of things that have "better specs" that just don't matter. It's a sort of cult. Sure, it's better, but a person can't experience its superiority. The screen has more pixels than the eye has cones and rods, and it is more costly, it requires more computational power, it drains the battery, all this stupidity just so they have a MARKETING point - then to add insult to injury, they LITERALLY glue the battery in, make it impossible for 3rd parties to repair it, and slow down the operating system to encourage upgrades. They're just an asshole company.
I have a piece of shit "Motorola 5G one", literally one of the cheapest phones I could purchase. It has a TWO DAY battery. I'd rather it be lighter and smaller, than have this ridiculous battery. It's just extra weight. It's probably the same size as the latest iPhone, but it doesn't have stupid useless specs, it's designed for functionality, I'm SURE the processor is slower and there's less cores - it's more than adequate. It's just a phone.
48
Hircus
2022 Sep 28, 6:50pm
Hircus
2022 Sep 28, 6:50pm
Patrick says
Their ignorance?
It never crosses his mind that the woke can be wrong sometimes. It's always the others that are wrong and need to "change" or "evolve" or "learn";.
Even as he tried to virtue signal by being self reflective and demonstrating tolerance toward the mean bad outdated conservative, it was only as a vessel to assert intolerance.
https://slaynews.com/news/woke-hollywood-celeb-comes-to-grim-realization-i-wont-be-woke-enough-for-the-left-one-day/
“Sometimes I wonder — did I and others cutting them off make them dig their heels in deeper, fuel their ignorance with a nitro-boost of resentment and spite?
Their ignorance?
It never crosses his mind that the woke can be wrong sometimes. It's always the others that are wrong and need to "change" or "evolve" or "learn";.
Even as he tried to virtue signal by being self reflective and demonstrating tolerance toward the mean bad outdated conservative, it was only as a vessel to assert intolerance.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,193,135 comments by 13,874 users - TheDonald online now