While I get your point, this is an article, not a whitepaper.
If someone says something that is obviously not a thing, like ‘the perfect resolution of an analog painting’, then it means the author probably didn’t actually understand what they read and so you shouldn’t trust their interpretation of the underlying news.
That’s not a resolution, that’s a pixel density at a set distance. It’s also arbitrary on Apple’s end, not actually a meaningful universal measurement.
To demonstrate the efficacy of the tiny screen, the researchers reproduced The Kiss, a famous artwork painted by Gustav Klimt. The image was shown in perfect resolution on the screen, which at approximately 1.4 x 1.9 mm was 1/4000th that of a standard smartphone.
This makes me doubt the author of the article’s credibility. What exactly is the “perfect resolution” of a hand painted piece of art?
The underlying paper is published in Nature which adds more credibility to its significance but an article that presents none of the limitations, drawbacks, or broader industry context that might hold something like this back isn’t adding much. What was the colour depth? Refresh rate? Is it thrown if the external light shifts and changes? How many children have to be sacrificed to the machine gods to produce it? Etc. etc.
But they don’t bomb, which I don’t understand.
I’ve never once heard anyone talk about them, except to make a joke about James Cameron. Literally never even hear mention that they went to see a movie and it was Avatar. The fact that those movies make money confounds me.
deleted by creator
If there is min/maxing to be done then by definition our current practices are not best.
No.
Best practices explicitly and always refers to currently best available current practices.
On top of that, in the context of a discussion with an explicit goal, best practices would explicitly refer to how to the best practices for achieving that goal, not some other nebulous context of “best” practices.
Best practice for what oils to use for seasoning, and how to best apply them and get them to form even layers is up in the air.
Best practices are not up in the air. Best practices are to use a thin layer of high smoke point oil like rapeseed oil, baked above it’s smoke point for like 20m. Repeat to create a thicker layer.
What you are describing is min/maxing, and getting more specific from there. Yes, eventually researchers may discover even better oils or treatment plans for cast iron, but right now, best practices are known, reliable, not a mystery, and not hard to follow.
This level of mystery is not true. It’s just a hunk of iron that gets a polymerizered coating of oil on it. That used to be hard to achieve before we had reliable ovens and cooking oil. Now it’s easy.
That’s all there is to it.
They’ve continued to today because some people are paranoid / like to feel special / don’t understand things well, so default to perpetuating rules they heard someone say confidently rather than questioning why that rule was created in the first place.
Lol.
A) yes you do. You’re conflating not wanting to slightly alter your habits with not possible.
B) you can also leave it on the counter or the stovetop. You shouldn’t leave any metal object soaking in the sink for a day. Leave them on the counter and then put them in the sink to soak like 5 min before you start cleaning them.
Can you propose a process that is so flawless that it won’t fail a single time out of 5.5 Billion?
Well yeah, two obvious ones:
what you do with chicken nuggets, where you grind the meat.
where you train and pay your employees well and have quality control processes and audits to detect whenever something goes wrong.
Now, when a problem happens, I’d agree that Tyson should be on the hook to cover medical costs, etc. This shouldn’t hinge on the definition of “boneless.” Regardless of whether the customer should have known there was the chance of bone or not, their product caused harm in an unexpected way, and they should be liable for that.
It entirely hinges on that definition. Tyson isn’t going to get sued or cover shit if you choke on a bone in a normal chicken wing.
The harm occurred only because Tyson advertised them as boneless when they weren’t.
Unless you are eating octopus or calamari, every piece of meat ever comes with the possibility of bones.
Ok bud, so when I buy a chicken breast, it’s totally impossible for me to butcher and clean it in a way that there aren’t going to be bones in the end result?
You think bones just randomly grow throughout the muscle in impossible to predict ways?
Why on earth, should a corporation be allowed to advertise that they sell boneless wings that have bones in them? This isn’t the government holding someone’s hand this is the government preventing a massive corporation from lying and cutting corners to the point that people get hurt. Like Jesus Christ do you work for Tyson foods, are you sleep deprived, or genuinely just this daft?
If they have the possibility of having bones in them, then they should not be labelled “boneless”, since they are then, you know, not boneless. They should be labelled “sometimes boneless”, or the company should do its job and follow proper quality control processes.
We could also have prevented this situation with government mandated minimum chewing times.
Please do tell us your detailed plan for having the government regulate the chewing time of children?
I’m sure it’s more practical then just banning corporations from making false claims and lying to consumers.
It is the result of someone suing, but I have no idea what you mean with the modifier “just”.
A guy bought boneless wings, ate them, one of them had a long bone in it that he swallowed and it caused a massive infection.
He of course sued, and the Ohio Supreme Court made this asinine ruling to protect the food supplier mega corporation, rather then forcing them to have proper quality control processes.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/26/boneless-chicken-wings-ohio-ruling
It’s honestly one of the most mind boggingly stupid decisions I’ve ever heard. An Ohio State Senator introduced legislation in January to effectively tell the Supreme Court their ruling was dumb:
https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-bill-aims-target-boneless-chicken-wings-2033419
Why?
Lack of Feature Parity
Stickiness of library transfer
Stickiness of social network effects
It’s still better ethically than Apple Music or YouTube Music, which behave anti-competitively
1: I’ve tried out Quobuz, it’s pretty good, but it does not have the Jam / Group Session feature which me and my friends use constantly while gaming remotely. It also does not have an Xbox app which I use while playing games. I find Spotify’s recommendations somewhat underwhelming, but Quobuz has a noticeably worse recommendation engine, at least for my genres and tastes. Those are the features that lack parity that matter to me, but for some others, it’s things like amplifiers having built-in Spotify, or there being a Roku or Playstation app or something.
2: Quobuz uses a third party service to automatically transfer your library, which worked pretty well, but did require jumping through a bunch of hoops and subscribing to a trial subscription that I then had to cancel. It also did not find matches for some songs. Could I make it work if I had enough reason to switch? Yeah, probably, but the lack of feature parity (/roadmap that includes them) is enough to dissuade me from really trying.
3: In addition to friends on Spotify all using Jams, there’s also an inherent niceness to just being able to text people Spotify links, especially since there’s no cross platform linking service that would otherwise make sharing music easy.
4: Supporting Spotify may not be great, but its still better than supporting trillion dollar anti-competitive corporations like Apple and Google.
Yeah we know, spiny hat, hook in his mouth, surprised look about him.
Honestly, pretty motivating if you think about it.
I mean, whenever you’re sitting there at work, thinking that your job is stupid and pointless, just remember that there are people out there trying to use the American court system to get fair and sensible rulings. Your job will never be remotely as pointless as theirs.
I mean, they do objectively reduce airflow somewhat compared to no screen. It’s not a big deal, but it’s also impossible for them not to.
I was vacationing in the Newcastle area nearish to Scotland for the most part, and I certainly didn’t notice mosquitos like we have in Canada, but even just random spiders and flies and stuff were constantly coming inside with open windows.
It’s not the end of the world, but neither is installing a screen, it just seemed strange how universally uncommon they were. Like I figured that at least some people would still hate bugs enough to install them.
I found this flabbergasting about the UK. Not only did nowhere have air conditioning, but nowhere had window screens either.
In the place we rented there was just bugs flying in all the time, and the older hotels were unbearably hot since the lack of screens also meant that the windows couldn’t open more than an inch or two.
Again, no, because that’s not a resolution, that’s a pixel density at a set distance.