Tesla named autopilot as similar in function to the autopilot in an airplane. It just flies in a straight line and has no obstacles to contend with.
I think this makes sense but no-one seems to get this, except maybe pilots. Intentional or not, Tesla touts this as a prelude to full autonomous driving and thus implies that it is in some way similar to it, but really has nothing to do with it. I think this was a big mistake, they should have called it something more obscure like TACC wLC (Traffic Aware Cruise Control with Lane Keeping), because that is all it really does. Then expectations for it would be far lower and there would be no problem here. I also don't think they make it explicit enough that this is a beta feature in the software.
I tend to only use the TACC part, which works really well. The steering really only works in ideal conditions, does not deal well with exit ramps (or similar issues), and can also tend to shimmy side-to-side hunting for markers, or drives too close for comfort to barriers or adjacent cars. I don't trust it when I am possibly a millisecond away from a crash, it just causes me more stress than just driving myself or with just TACC. There are other good reasons to have the feature, such as auto-park, and the accident avoidance is always on regardless of if you are using autopilot or not.
They are technically correct about the statistics, but it is just not working for them as a PR defense, because there is too much focus on Tesla even as people die by the thousands in other types of cars.
What is this, AOL? This such ridiculous FUD I can't believe it.... the shame!
- Good computing practices are good computing practices, regardless of which platform you use - Teaching your kids safe computing practices, again, irrespective of platform - I don't consider MACs significantly more or less secure than PCs running Windows, but I doubt we will ever know... - How fast were MACs hacked in the last hacking contest? - If MACs had a 90+% market share, they would be under attack too...
Now, I am in the Windows camp, because that and VMware is what pays my bills, but I am just as likely to recommend MACs, I have been using computers years before either came along. It all depends on use case.
So, for "safe computing" advice, and again, regardless of platform: - Practice least privilege, so yeah don't run as admin regularly, only when you need to, and only when you initiate it - Use "defense in depth", don't rely on any one method - Run a good anti-malware / anti-virus program, possibly more than one, (Malwarebytes, etc.) - Run an ad-blocker, which has other benefits as well - Run a good router / gateway / UTM (like Sophos), rather than the one from your ISP or Best Buy so you can filter the Internet for your kids and so forth - Use a password manager + physical two-factor authentication - Learn how to properly secure your wireless networks - Back up your data, with one copy preferably off-site - Run the latest supported OS you can, keep up to date on patches - You might want to use a local firewall, especially if it is a laptop - I am sure others can chime in with additional suggestions....
And separately from this, for this use-case: - Get a laptop if you must, but for gaming Windows Desktops are still at the top of the food chain - But, which games are we talking about specifically? MACs can run more than they used to... (again, use case) - If you have a Windows desktop/laptop, but you like MacOS, run a nice hackintosh, only use Windows for the games if you like - How about just dual-booting your MAC into Windows? Not perfect, but might do the job just for games - Lastly, you will save a fair bit of money, I don't think anyone really disputes that MACs are more expensive, unless it is a very high end Windows box - Plenty of Windows laptops with sexy hardware similar to or rivaling MACs
You know we have had the technology to make ultrasonic clothes and dish washers for decades now (same tech as jewelry cleaners). You know why we don't have them? Because they work so well, they don't even need any detergent, and so all the detergent companies would go out of business. Oh, and they are also much more efficient as well (less water, less hot water, less electricity, etc.).
Maybe this has a better chance, unless the fabric softener cartel hears of it....
-RoS
P.S. - I was looking through the thread about the indoor vs. outdoor clothes drying argument. Has anyone brought up the problem of the damage UV rays will do to some clothing? I don't know, maybe the EU people like lighter colored clothing.
So, yes to the people posting about the accidents. OK, so no-one is forcing you to buy one, you can remain perfectly safe in the gas car of your choice, right? Because they only explode rather than just burn.
Who are you trying to convince and what are you trying to convince them of?
I did do allot of research before making a purchase. I did see the articles and those news postings. And after very heavily researching it, I am/was satisfied it was safe for me and my wife and children. Actually, safety was a selling point, not a detractor.
OK, I don't post here much but read almost every day. I thought I would bite on this one, enough to change my password that I did not remember.
I don't know what is wrong with Consumer reports (I am a member), but after reading this post, I sat here wondering "hmm, when was the last time I was able to do something useful with one of their reviews?". I can't remember. I joined originally to compare appliances for my house, not sure what an alternative for that would be. For cars, I think you spend more time trying to interpret what their reviews "mean" than actually being able to use it in a purchasing decision, unless it is clear-cut and uncontested. Closest you will get to a car they consistently love, Lexus maybe? (what I was going to get if I did not go Tesla). But that is really boring if there is nothing they don't like about it.
They really liked the Model S at first, then they (now they) say it is unreliable. Based on that, I am not completely surprised about what they are saying about the Model X. I almost bought one, but my use case is better for a sedan and the doors scare me. Even Elon said he went overboard with the doors, just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Aside from that, I would prefer to let a model X owner chime in and offer their side of it. Or check the forums and ask.
I have owned a Tesla Model S 60D (fully loaded) for about 3 months now. Not sure what to actually say here that won't get me flamed, so I will just try to offer some helpful first-hand insight.
TL:DR - I have a Tesla and I am a regular guy, ask away.
For example, I am a little bothered by this negative post from the "Tesla builds shitty cars" guy, so I will pick that:
quote: I know nerds obsess over them, but Tesla builds shitty cars. Trim falling off, panel gap issues... as someone who purchases cars around $100k, these are just unacceptable. The Model S is fast but handles like a pig. It's not fun to drive unless you like stop light racing teens. Nor are they luxurious compared to a similarly priced Merc or Audi...
My comments: - The only thing in the paragraph that is even partially true might be the last statement. I have been in / owned cheaper cars that had better interior or features that I miss or wish my Tesla had / got right. Is it that bad? No, but people expect a car THAT expensive to perfect. I have sat in even more expensive cars, that also have this problem. I think it is more of a problem of expectations than any actual deterrent to buying or owning the car.
- There are people who have had problems with Tesla cars, lots of them. Maybe some of them think they are shitty as a result. I know I had trouble with this when I was researching if I should buy one or not (1-2 months of research I would say, two test drives, 5 or so trips to dealer) mostly because I had to filter through them for some real information. And to be fair, I have had it for only 3 months. Ask me again in 1-2 years or longer. I am asking myself all the time - would I dare to keep this car past the 8-year warranty?
- Fast but handles like a pig? It weighs 5,000+ lbs: so, you would expect that it would not accelerate well and would be too heavy to stay on the road because of things like that pesky F = ma. I could write pages on this, I am an engineer, but this is not a problem. Not only does it not have this problem, but it even exceeds the performance of much lighter cars that really SHOULD handily beat it. If you research why this is, it is because it is one of the things they got right, the short version is put all the weight at the bottom. I think the biggest limitation is actually the limit of my driving skills. I don't even own a "P" (performance) model, those one's that go 0-60 in 2.5/3.0 seconds or so (Yes, I did test drive it). Mine is a regular all-wheel drive with the smallest battery they currently sell. My 0-60 is 5.2 seconds. God bless those people who buy those $110K+, or the $150+ P100D, for me that would be at least $20-$
This is a real problem, I have experienced it myself on my computers and at work where I work in IT on some 4,000+ PCs. The help desk probably re-images a dozen machines a week partly due to this problem. I know for me it is often because I am downloading various interesting software packages, and then I am too lazy to uninstall them. And a large percentage of software does not uninstall cleanly - not really a Microsoft problem there, not completely.
Personally I kind of like Windows 8.1, and I really only think it was a marketing flub to try an force a touch interface on people. Bad Microsoft, no biscuit. But I digress...
* On some machines we use a product called Citrix Provisioning Server (used to be Ardence), booting the machines off a network read-only drive, and we have other software that saves select important user settings and files. We refer to this as "stateless" and is the closest thing you get to being immune to this problem. Unless you really have skillz and screw up the master image this is based on. This has been the "Always runs like new" experience for us.
Other ways to achieve a similar effect: Use virtualization * Windows 8.1 includes a FULL version of Hyper-V, a type I hyper-visor that is fast (you could use others as well of course). Basically, install Windows twice, one being the host and put nothing on there but the guest. Then immediately make a snapshot of the guest. Use that VM for web surfing or any activity that will introduce cruft, etc., and you can always revert to the snapshot and be pristine one again (of course you will need to do updates again, re-install software, etc.). This also would let you use Win7 as the guest, if you like that OS better. XenClient Enterprise is another nice one but it costs money (no, I don't work for Citrix, but I am a Citrix admin). Oh, and although this is similar in effect to backing up with an image, it is much faster and you don't have to buy something like Acronis (although it is nice). I can't recommend things like VMware Workstation, VMware Fusion, Parallels, etc. because Type II hyper-visors like these cause a big performance hit for everyday use, especially if you have invested in a nice machine and want to take advantage of it. These have good utility for other things though.
Make your own thin client * If you have access to Microsoft Enterprise licensing, you can use the ThinPC version of Windows, which is made to turn a PC into a thin client and includes a write filter. Such a machine will not retain anything on reboot. So you would need a way to save data / settings elsewhere. But, you can turn the write filter off to install things permanently and then turn it on again. Effectively making an "appliance" with the apps you need, but doesn't really get slow over time (at least no where near as much or as fast). Great way to test things.
Microsoft did include a "refresh your PC" built right into Windows 8.1, but I will admit I have not tried it myself yet.
Movies come in different aspect ratios. At 1.78:1 you get 1080p or 2160p. At the also popular 2.35:1 you get ~817p. 720p likewise becomes ~544p. Those aren't really helpful for comparison since 817p isn't lower resolution than 1080p. Only the horizontal resolution is constant, so it actually makes sense to use it. The use of vertical resolution comes from the days of analog TV when only horizontal resolution was continuous, not discrete.
(I'm sure the marketing folks were salivating over it anyway.)
Also, while I haven't watched your hour-long video (summary?), I'm not sure why anyone would target 4096 pixels wide, which would make upscaling existing HD very painful. Doubling the resolution is much simpler, and I very much doubt that 4K was ever a spec as opposed to a marketing term.
Indeed, upscaling existing 1920x1080 to 4096x(aspect ratio) would be painful. Just as downscaling the 2K and 4K that movies are shot in to 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 are, but could be much better if they weren't. That is one of the points brought up in the video.
Other points in the video talk about how resolution isn't the only factor that makes the newer formats better, it is not even the most important one. The new formats also come with a wider color gamut, better compression algorithms, and so on. But one of the main points is the problem of getting movie formats cleanly scaled down to home formats. They had an opportunity here to stop doing that and they blew it.
The TV resolution specifications (720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc) were set in the 90s. It was after this that digital movie recording started with a slightly different "2K" resolution. They are different display mechanisms after all, the home TV and the cinema - even if the home TV is approaching cinema size (factoring in viewing distance).
2048x1080 is a stupid resolution. 2048x1152 would be more sane as it's a 16:9 display. Maybe this is what Full HD should have been originally instead of 1080 lines. Too late now.
"8K" in the home will be 7680x4320.
Resolutions such as 720p and 1080i were created due to transport / transmission limitations, and I would say they were more "arrived at" than set.
My DLP projector is extremely similar to the one's at the cinema.
Actually, 2048x1080 isn't a format, as you point out it's an aspect ratio. The movie studios use 2K, 4K, etc. to refer to the fixed number of the format, but the aspect ratio is variable as you can see with all the different ratios used by different movies. You can have 2K at 2048x2048 if you want.
If they scanned old film or shot digital movies at 3840x2160, that would also fix it.
"So, the whole reason for going with faux 4K (3820 x 2160 or just 2160p as it should be called) in the first place, was because existing HDMI couldn't quite hit 4096 to do the real thing."
No, that's not the "whole reason" or even part of the reason. The remaining question is uninteresting.
You may not know who Joe Kane is, but this should help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqhA3iIHm4
Perhaps not the whole reason, likely the main reason, but definitely part of the reason.
I think the answer to the remaining question might be that they don't have a good reason...
3820x2160 is merely Quad-1080p - which at least is sane.
4096x2160 is 17:9 (ish) - I don't see the point in this resolution.
I await the pointless 5040x2160 monitors (21:9, the "new shiny standard" for widescreen monitors).
1920 (as being slightly short of 2048) is the old or maybe existing faux format, but at least they call it 1080p and not 2K.
The point of 4096x2160 or if you will, 2048x1080 is that those are resolutions that movie studios actually shoot movies in, and they refer to them as 2K, 4K, 8K, etc.
There are no perfect ways to convert from the movie format to the home format. Yes, you could say it is convenient to be able to double/quad our current 1920x1080, but actually that too is itself based on slightly less than the real thing. If we used the same resolutions at home, then no conversion and thus no picture and/or quality loss would happen from the conversion.
I will wait for 8K and hope it is 8192x4320 and not 7680x4320, or I will just call it 4320p.
So, the whole reason for going with faux 4K (3820 x 2160 or just 2160p as it should be called) in the first place, was because existing HDMI couldn't quite hit 4096 to do the real thing. Now they come out with something that can do it, but they are sticking with 3840?
I love these rebound elections. Just because the last candidate sucked, everyone runs to the opposite side regardless.
The next one will likely be similar, if they allow us to vote from the political re-education camps that is.
-ROS
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla named autopilot as similar in function to the autopilot in an airplane. It just flies in a straight line and has no obstacles to contend with.
I think this makes sense but no-one seems to get this, except maybe pilots. Intentional or not, Tesla touts this as a prelude to full autonomous driving and thus implies that it is in some way similar to it, but really has nothing to do with it. I think this was a big mistake, they should have called it something more obscure like TACC wLC (Traffic Aware Cruise Control with Lane Keeping), because that is all it really does. Then expectations for it would be far lower and there would be no problem here. I also don't think they make it explicit enough that this is a beta feature in the software.
I tend to only use the TACC part, which works really well. The steering really only works in ideal conditions, does not deal well with exit ramps (or similar issues), and can also tend to shimmy side-to-side hunting for markers, or drives too close for comfort to barriers or adjacent cars. I don't trust it when I am possibly a millisecond away from a crash, it just causes me more stress than just driving myself or with just TACC. There are other good reasons to have the feature, such as auto-park, and the accident avoidance is always on regardless of if you are using autopilot or not.
They are technically correct about the statistics, but it is just not working for them as a PR defense, because there is too much focus on Tesla even as people die by the thousands in other types of cars.
- RoS
What is this, AOL? This such ridiculous FUD I can't believe it.... the shame!
- Good computing practices are good computing practices, regardless of which platform you use
- Teaching your kids safe computing practices, again, irrespective of platform
- I don't consider MACs significantly more or less secure than PCs running Windows, but I doubt we will ever know...
- How fast were MACs hacked in the last hacking contest?
- If MACs had a 90+% market share, they would be under attack too...
Now, I am in the Windows camp, because that and VMware is what pays my bills, but I am just as likely to recommend MACs, I have been using computers years before either came along. It all depends on use case.
So, for "safe computing" advice, and again, regardless of platform:
- Practice least privilege, so yeah don't run as admin regularly, only when you need to, and only when you initiate it
- Use "defense in depth", don't rely on any one method
- Run a good anti-malware / anti-virus program, possibly more than one, (Malwarebytes, etc.)
- Run an ad-blocker, which has other benefits as well
- Run a good router / gateway / UTM (like Sophos), rather than the one from your ISP or Best Buy so you can filter the Internet for your kids and so forth
- Use a password manager + physical two-factor authentication
- Learn how to properly secure your wireless networks
- Back up your data, with one copy preferably off-site
- Run the latest supported OS you can, keep up to date on patches
- You might want to use a local firewall, especially if it is a laptop
- I am sure others can chime in with additional suggestions....
And separately from this, for this use-case:
- Get a laptop if you must, but for gaming Windows Desktops are still at the top of the food chain
- But, which games are we talking about specifically? MACs can run more than they used to... (again, use case)
- If you have a Windows desktop/laptop, but you like MacOS, run a nice hackintosh, only use Windows for the games if you like
- How about just dual-booting your MAC into Windows? Not perfect, but might do the job just for games
- Lastly, you will save a fair bit of money, I don't think anyone really disputes that MACs are more expensive, unless it is a very high end Windows box
- Plenty of Windows laptops with sexy hardware similar to or rivaling MACs
-RoS
You know we have had the technology to make ultrasonic clothes and dish washers for decades now (same tech as jewelry cleaners). You know why we don't have them? Because they work so well, they don't even need any detergent, and so all the detergent companies would go out of business. Oh, and they are also much more efficient as well (less water, less hot water, less electricity, etc.).
Maybe this has a better chance, unless the fabric softener cartel hears of it....
-RoS
P.S. - I was looking through the thread about the indoor vs. outdoor clothes drying argument. Has anyone brought up the problem of the damage UV rays will do to some clothing? I don't know, maybe the EU people like lighter colored clothing.
So, yes to the people posting about the accidents. OK, so no-one is forcing you to buy one, you can remain perfectly safe in the gas car of your choice, right? Because they only explode rather than just burn.
Who are you trying to convince and what are you trying to convince them of?
I did do allot of research before making a purchase. I did see the articles and those news postings. And after very heavily researching it, I am/was satisfied it was safe for me and my wife and children. Actually, safety was a selling point, not a detractor.
-RoS
OK, I don't post here much but read almost every day. I thought I would bite on this one, enough to change my password that I did not remember.
I don't know what is wrong with Consumer reports (I am a member), but after reading this post, I sat here wondering "hmm, when was the last time I was able to do something useful with one of their reviews?". I can't remember. I joined originally to compare appliances for my house, not sure what an alternative for that would be. For cars, I think you spend more time trying to interpret what their reviews "mean" than actually being able to use it in a purchasing decision, unless it is clear-cut and uncontested. Closest you will get to a car they consistently love, Lexus maybe? (what I was going to get if I did not go Tesla). But that is really boring if there is nothing they don't like about it.
They really liked the Model S at first, then they (now they) say it is unreliable. Based on that, I am not completely surprised about what they are saying about the Model X. I almost bought one, but my use case is better for a sedan and the doors scare me. Even Elon said he went overboard with the doors, just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Aside from that, I would prefer to let a model X owner chime in and offer their side of it. Or check the forums and ask.
I have owned a Tesla Model S 60D (fully loaded) for about 3 months now. Not sure what to actually say here that won't get me flamed, so I will just try to offer some helpful first-hand insight.
TL:DR - I have a Tesla and I am a regular guy, ask away.
For example, I am a little bothered by this negative post from the "Tesla builds shitty cars" guy, so I will pick that:
quote:
I know nerds obsess over them, but Tesla builds shitty cars. Trim falling off, panel gap issues... as someone who purchases cars around $100k, these are just unacceptable. The Model S is fast but handles like a pig. It's not fun to drive unless you like stop light racing teens. Nor are they luxurious compared to a similarly priced Merc or Audi...
My comments:
- The only thing in the paragraph that is even partially true might be the last statement. I have been in / owned cheaper cars that had better interior or features that I miss or wish my Tesla had / got right. Is it that bad? No, but people expect a car THAT expensive to perfect. I have sat in even more expensive cars, that also have this problem. I think it is more of a problem of expectations than any actual deterrent to buying or owning the car.
- There are people who have had problems with Tesla cars, lots of them. Maybe some of them think they are shitty as a result. I know I had trouble with this when I was researching if I should buy one or not (1-2 months of research I would say, two test drives, 5 or so trips to dealer) mostly because I had to filter through them for some real information. And to be fair, I have had it for only 3 months. Ask me again in 1-2 years or longer. I am asking myself all the time - would I dare to keep this car past the 8-year warranty?
- Fast but handles like a pig? It weighs 5,000+ lbs: so, you would expect that it would not accelerate well and would be too heavy to stay on the road because of things like that pesky F = ma. I could write pages on this, I am an engineer, but this is not a problem. Not only does it not have this problem, but it even exceeds the performance of much lighter cars that really SHOULD handily beat it. If you research why this is, it is because it is one of the things they got right, the short version is put all the weight at the bottom. I think the biggest limitation is actually the limit of my driving skills. I don't even own a "P" (performance) model, those one's that go 0-60 in 2.5/3.0 seconds or so (Yes, I did test drive it). Mine is a regular all-wheel drive with the smallest battery they currently sell. My 0-60 is 5.2 seconds. God bless those people who buy those $110K+, or the $150+ P100D, for me that would be at least $20-$
A pleasant event... don't they mean a pheasant event? :-)
*ducks*
This is a real problem, I have experienced it myself on my computers and at work where I work in IT on some 4,000+ PCs. The help desk probably re-images a dozen machines a week partly due to this problem. I know for me it is often because I am downloading various interesting software packages, and then I am too lazy to uninstall them. And a large percentage of software does not uninstall cleanly - not really a Microsoft problem there, not completely.
Personally I kind of like Windows 8.1, and I really only think it was a marketing flub to try an force a touch interface on people. Bad Microsoft, no biscuit. But I digress...
* On some machines we use a product called Citrix Provisioning Server (used to be Ardence), booting the machines off a network read-only drive, and we have other software that saves select important user settings and files. We refer to this as "stateless" and is the closest thing you get to being immune to this problem. Unless you really have skillz and screw up the master image this is based on. This has been the "Always runs like new" experience for us.
Other ways to achieve a similar effect:
Use virtualization
* Windows 8.1 includes a FULL version of Hyper-V, a type I hyper-visor that is fast (you could use others as well of course). Basically, install Windows twice, one being the host and put nothing on there but the guest. Then immediately make a snapshot of the guest. Use that VM for web surfing or any activity that will introduce cruft, etc., and you can always revert to the snapshot and be pristine one again (of course you will need to do updates again, re-install software, etc.). This also would let you use Win7 as the guest, if you like that OS better. XenClient Enterprise is another nice one but it costs money (no, I don't work for Citrix, but I am a Citrix admin). Oh, and although this is similar in effect to backing up with an image, it is much faster and you don't have to buy something like Acronis (although it is nice). I can't recommend things like VMware Workstation, VMware Fusion, Parallels, etc. because Type II hyper-visors like these cause a big performance hit for everyday use, especially if you have invested in a nice machine and want to take advantage of it. These have good utility for other things though.
Make your own thin client
* If you have access to Microsoft Enterprise licensing, you can use the ThinPC version of Windows, which is made to turn a PC into a thin client and includes a write filter. Such a machine will not retain anything on reboot. So you would need a way to save data / settings elsewhere. But, you can turn the write filter off to install things permanently and then turn it on again. Effectively making an "appliance" with the apps you need, but doesn't really get slow over time (at least no where near as much or as fast). Great way to test things.
Microsoft did include a "refresh your PC" built right into Windows 8.1, but I will admit I have not tried it myself yet.
At least this way we know where the Neanderthals ended up...
or just 2160p as it should be called
Movies come in different aspect ratios. At 1.78:1 you get 1080p or 2160p. At the also popular 2.35:1 you get ~817p. 720p likewise becomes ~544p. Those aren't really helpful for comparison since 817p isn't lower resolution than 1080p. Only the horizontal resolution is constant, so it actually makes sense to use it. The use of vertical resolution comes from the days of analog TV when only horizontal resolution was continuous, not discrete.
(I'm sure the marketing folks were salivating over it anyway.)
Also, while I haven't watched your hour-long video (summary?), I'm not sure why anyone would target 4096 pixels wide, which would make upscaling existing HD very painful. Doubling the resolution is much simpler, and I very much doubt that 4K was ever a spec as opposed to a marketing term.
Indeed, upscaling existing 1920x1080 to 4096x(aspect ratio) would be painful. Just as downscaling the 2K and 4K that movies are shot in to 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 are, but could be much better if they weren't. That is one of the points brought up in the video.
Other points in the video talk about how resolution isn't the only factor that makes the newer formats better, it is not even the most important one. The new formats also come with a wider color gamut, better compression algorithms, and so on. But one of the main points is the problem of getting movie formats cleanly scaled down to home formats. They had an opportunity here to stop doing that and they blew it.
Yip it should be called 2160p.
4K is already reserved for the resolution of 4096x2160, which is the resolution of movie camera sensors and the resolution of theatre projectors.
Absolutely. I especially love that every "4K*" TV is already tagged with an asterisk with a sticker at the bottom of the TV saying "*3840x2160"....
even the lawyers knew this was a bad idea.
The TV resolution specifications (720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc) were set in the 90s. It was after this that digital movie recording started with a slightly different "2K" resolution. They are different display mechanisms after all, the home TV and the cinema - even if the home TV is approaching cinema size (factoring in viewing distance).
2048x1080 is a stupid resolution. 2048x1152 would be more sane as it's a 16:9 display. Maybe this is what Full HD should have been originally instead of 1080 lines. Too late now.
"8K" in the home will be 7680x4320.
Resolutions such as 720p and 1080i were created due to transport / transmission limitations, and I would say they were more "arrived at" than set. My DLP projector is extremely similar to the one's at the cinema. Actually, 2048x1080 isn't a format, as you point out it's an aspect ratio. The movie studios use 2K, 4K, etc. to refer to the fixed number of the format, but the aspect ratio is variable as you can see with all the different ratios used by different movies. You can have 2K at 2048x2048 if you want. If they scanned old film or shot digital movies at 3840x2160, that would also fix it.
"So, the whole reason for going with faux 4K (3820 x 2160 or just 2160p as it should be called) in the first place, was because existing HDMI couldn't quite hit 4096 to do the real thing."
No, that's not the "whole reason" or even part of the reason. The remaining question is uninteresting.
You may not know who Joe Kane is, but this should help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqhA3iIHm4 Perhaps not the whole reason, likely the main reason, but definitely part of the reason. I think the answer to the remaining question might be that they don't have a good reason...
1920 multiplied by 2 is 3820.
3820x2160 is merely Quad-1080p - which at least is sane.
4096x2160 is 17:9 (ish) - I don't see the point in this resolution.
I await the pointless 5040x2160 monitors (21:9, the "new shiny standard" for widescreen monitors).
1920 (as being slightly short of 2048) is the old or maybe existing faux format, but at least they call it 1080p and not 2K. The point of 4096x2160 or if you will, 2048x1080 is that those are resolutions that movie studios actually shoot movies in, and they refer to them as 2K, 4K, 8K, etc. There are no perfect ways to convert from the movie format to the home format. Yes, you could say it is convenient to be able to double/quad our current 1920x1080, but actually that too is itself based on slightly less than the real thing. If we used the same resolutions at home, then no conversion and thus no picture and/or quality loss would happen from the conversion. I will wait for 8K and hope it is 8192x4320 and not 7680x4320, or I will just call it 4320p.
So, the whole reason for going with faux 4K (3820 x 2160 or just 2160p as it should be called) in the first place, was because existing HDMI couldn't quite hit 4096 to do the real thing. Now they come out with something that can do it, but they are sticking with 3840?
I love these rebound elections. Just because the last candidate sucked, everyone runs to the opposite side regardless. The next one will likely be similar, if they allow us to vote from the political re-education camps that is. -ROS