If only Chrome extensions worked on mobile.... You know, the place where you most care of some greedy, slimy, site is abusing your very limited and very expensive bandwidth.
So basically you're a racist, sexist, person who also discriminates on age.
Good to know. I know who I would never hire. My hiring decisions are based solely on merit, and those who think that they should get a free pass just because of their genitalia, skin colour, or victim complex need not apply.
Discrimination doesn't stop being discrimination just because it happens to be against a group you disapprove of.
But why would you single out 2 Chinese manufacturers vs every other manufacturer out there? Keep in mind that there are ZERO phones made entirely in a jurisdiction under US control.
Is that any worse than trying to be anti-racist/sexist by proposing actually being racist and sexist? Because that's what this is.
Saying we need more women and fewer white people is the very definition of sexism and racism, it is specifying that decisions should be made based on gender and race, rather than merit.
There will never be an end to racism and sexism as long as anyone is paying attention to the races and genders. By even tracking statistics on race and gender in an industry, you are contributing to racism and sexism. There is no reason to even keep those statistics except to be used for racist or sexist purposes. The data simply has no other valid use.
no, only male dominated fields that pay well and have good safety records need to be 50:50, there's no push to change male dominated fields that pay horribly, or male dominated fields that have poor safety records, or female dominated fields (regardless of pay or safety)
Take nurses and teachers as examples, both female dominated, good paying, relatively safe, jobs. Where's the insistence that we need more men in those fields? Where are the dedicated male spots in nursing and teaching schools? Where is the preferential hiring for males in those fields?
If they really think all fields should be 50:50, they need to think ALL fields. we should be 50:50 on minimum wage garbage pickers, and on high risk industrial jobs. We should be 50:50 in nursing, teaching, etc. After all that's the goal right? every job to be 50:50. Not just the ones deemed to be desirable to specific individuals.
How about we rephrase that to the truth, it's not that it's cheaper, it's that it has a higher profit margin. If you looked in the stores at the time when wide screens started to become popular, despite having a smaller overall area the wide screens actually were asking more money than the other ones because they were touting it as a feature as opposed to what it really was which was a marketing gimmick which harmed usability.
Yes it is cheaper to make, but when we compared the two side-by-side it became very obvious that it was not being passed on to the consumer at all, it was entirely being absorbed as profit margin.
Your definition of almost every needs some work because near as I can tell it's actually extremely few. The vast majority of laptops regardless of their screen size have absolutely no numeric keypad. Sure you can find it if you're looking, but you really have to look, because it is not at all a very common feature.
Except that's not at all what happened in any way shape or form. The phones have actually been getting narrower and taller. They just claim it's only using up the bezel space. Compare a Galaxy Note 4 to a Galaxy Note 8. You'll find very quickly that the Note 4 has more screen real estate in a shorter wider frame than the Note 8 which has the ridiculous aspect ratio that's even worse than 2:1. And the note series phones are not an outlier either, almost every manufacturer is doing exactly the same thing. You can see it on LG phones OnePlus phones Samsung phones, the list goes on. The new phones are taller, narrower, have a much smaller screen, and at the same time are bragging about having a larger screen because the ridiculous aspect ratio gives them a larger corner to corner measurement with a smaller overall surface area.
But marketing is powerful, you only have to look at this site, which is theoretically a site for Geeks Who should know better. Despite all of that many posters believe as you do that this has nothing to do with reducing screen sizes and increasing profit margins and is instead simply to use up dead bezel space or some other marketing gimmick which has no basis in reality.
The simple fact is that phones have never been more expensive, and yet screens have been shrinking ever since the aspect ratio changed. And just to add insult to injury not only are the screen smaller the new aspect ratio makes them extremely less usable.
Again, you've bought the marketing hype while completely ignoring reality. The diagonal screen measurement has been increasing, which is the only number they brag about. But the screens have actually been shrinking. As soon as they went away from 16:9 and went to 2:1 (or worse) the total area of the screens shrank.
This is why they do it. Because people like you don't bother to actually compare the reality, and instead believe the marketing department. They spend less to make the phone while you spend more to buy it, and all the while you get screwed by an oddball screen shape and a smaller total screen area.
You missed the part where I said that the phones are actually NARROWER than they were before. My Samsung Galaxy Note 4 had more square inches of screen than any of the newer Note series phones, despite a smaller marketing number. It was also a hair wider, and not nearly as tall. This made it fit better in pockets. It was very comfortable to hold, and could be used one handed. You could also grip it because it didn't need a bulky case getting in your way because the back of the phone wasn't made of super slick polished glass.
They don't want to push bigger screens, that part is obvious because the screens AREN'T bigger, they simply have a bigger diagonal measurement which makes them SOUND bigger in marketing materials. The screens themselves are actually SMALLER than they were a few years ago.
But you obviously bought the hype, hook, line, and sinker. You believe them when they claim that the screens are bigger despite having a smaller overall area, and that they're just using up dead bezel space when in fact they're actively narrowing and lengthening the phones. Good to see marketing works for them, their marketing department will be pleased.
Unfortunately for those of us who actually want a big screen phone, we have to decided between the larger display, or a newer device, you can't have both.
Depends what you're looking for. You're right that "normal" laptops don't. But I just switched my primary computer to a Pixelbook, 4:3 ratio, full Ubuntu linux, and overall a really nice little machine.
There are however a few downsides: 1) they are one of the manufacturers who think glossy screens are a good thing... hint, they aren't, they never have been, and I wish that fad would die! 2) some people will want a physically larger display, though I've been pretty happy with it (though it is only a 13" screen, the taller aspect ratio and high resolution help mitigate that size a lot as long as your eyesight is decent) 3) high end gamers won't be happy with the performance, but then again, not everyone uses those sorts of games.
Careful, at this rate we'll reach that aspect ratio pretty quickly. Just imagine how the marketing will spin that "Super-duper-ultra-wide"! all the while saving them lots of money on manufacturing as they only sell monitors based on diagonal inches, not square inches or pixel count.
My 16:10 32" QHD monitor is dying.... I already opened it up and replaced the backlight, but there's now also something wrong with it where it will sometimes display random bars of colour instead of the picture you're looking for.
I thought that with the new 4K craze I could replace it with something in the 32"-40" range and still be happy by making up for the lost aspect ratio with a bit of a larger display and the extra resolution, but I've discovered that the smallest 4K TVs are too big, and the largest 4K monitors are WAY more expensive than those small 4K TVs.
My work issues laptops. They must be used for all work related functions and our corporate data is not to be moved to a personal computer. I work from home 3 days a week with the laptop hooked up to a docking station with a reasonable portrait orientation monitor, and the built in screen. It works pretty well actually. Unfortunately 2 days a week I'm forced to go in to the office. I have no assigned desk there, and have to reserve a workstation. They are currently in the process of removing the monitors, keyboards, and mice from those workstations and telling us to just use the laptop. So basically I have to make the laptop function as a reasonable desktop replacement all on it's own. This is not helped by the poor aspect ratio. In my company's defense, they held out on switching to 16:9 laptops for far longer than I thought possible, and the screen they issued me with the docking station was both 4:3, and rotates, but the latest laptops are all 16:9 so they really didn't have much choice on that side of things.
Except that's not how the real world works. If I have a bigger physical screen on my desktop, I can get away with smaller fonts and controls which allow for more content on the screen. On a laptop with it's smaller screen, I have to use bigger fonts and buttons to have the same usability.
Not to mention that 16:9 is a horrible aspect ratio on the desktop too. Luckily for me, I have one monitor that's in portrait mode instead, but that's hard to do on most laptops.
My pixelbook has a 4:3 aspect screen, and a keyboard that is WIDER than the keyboard on my HP Elitebook that has a 16:9 screen. And yes, it is better for typing on. and all that despite the overall laptop on the HP being wider.
As for "availability of screens"... how many 13-17 inch TVs do you see? The TV market in that size is effectively non-existent. These screens are being produced pretty much exclusively for computer use.
There is one BIG reason though, "Widescreen" sounds like a selling feature as it sounds like they made the screen wider than it otherwise would be instead of the truth which is that they made the screen shorter than it otherwise would be. It allows manufacturers to get a bigger marketing number for screen size, while actually manufacturing fewer pixels than they would otherwise have to to boast the same diagonal size at a better aspect ratio.
Slashdot Mirror
autoplay blocked? or just muted? muted still takes the same amount of bandwidth as if it were playing at full volume.
If only Chrome extensions worked on mobile.... You know, the place where you most care of some greedy, slimy, site is abusing your very limited and very expensive bandwidth.
You do realize that Huawei phones run Android right? Same as Samsung.
So basically you're a racist, sexist, person who also discriminates on age.
Good to know. I know who I would never hire. My hiring decisions are based solely on merit, and those who think that they should get a free pass just because of their genitalia, skin colour, or victim complex need not apply.
Discrimination doesn't stop being discrimination just because it happens to be against a group you disapprove of.
But if you aren't in the USA, they can't do that. So instead they do a bunch of scare mongering, and start blocking your US sales.
Of course that just tells the rest of the world that this must be the brand to buy!
Yes, they know that the chinese brands are refusing to install NSA back doors. So time to put some pressure on them to fall in to line..
If they actually knew of a case where Huawei was installing back doors, do you really think they wouldn't tell anyone?
When you refuse to put back doors in your hardware for the NSA....
But why would you single out 2 Chinese manufacturers vs every other manufacturer out there? Keep in mind that there are ZERO phones made entirely in a jurisdiction under US control.
If it were about ending racism and sexism we wouldn't ask what colour or gender people are.
You can't end discrimination by discriminating.
Your sexism and racism is readilly apparent in your last sentence.
Is that any worse than trying to be anti-racist/sexist by proposing actually being racist and sexist? Because that's what this is.
Saying we need more women and fewer white people is the very definition of sexism and racism, it is specifying that decisions should be made based on gender and race, rather than merit.
There will never be an end to racism and sexism as long as anyone is paying attention to the races and genders. By even tracking statistics on race and gender in an industry, you are contributing to racism and sexism. There is no reason to even keep those statistics except to be used for racist or sexist purposes. The data simply has no other valid use.
no, only male dominated fields that pay well and have good safety records need to be 50:50, there's no push to change male dominated fields that pay horribly, or male dominated fields that have poor safety records, or female dominated fields (regardless of pay or safety)
Take nurses and teachers as examples, both female dominated, good paying, relatively safe, jobs. Where's the insistence that we need more men in those fields? Where are the dedicated male spots in nursing and teaching schools? Where is the preferential hiring for males in those fields?
If they really think all fields should be 50:50, they need to think ALL fields. we should be 50:50 on minimum wage garbage pickers, and on high risk industrial jobs. We should be 50:50 in nursing, teaching, etc. After all that's the goal right? every job to be 50:50. Not just the ones deemed to be desirable to specific individuals.
How about we rephrase that to the truth, it's not that it's cheaper, it's that it has a higher profit margin. If you looked in the stores at the time when wide screens started to become popular, despite having a smaller overall area the wide screens actually were asking more money than the other ones because they were touting it as a feature as opposed to what it really was which was a marketing gimmick which harmed usability.
Yes it is cheaper to make, but when we compared the two side-by-side it became very obvious that it was not being passed on to the consumer at all, it was entirely being absorbed as profit margin.
Your definition of almost every needs some work because near as I can tell it's actually extremely few. The vast majority of laptops regardless of their screen size have absolutely no numeric keypad. Sure you can find it if you're looking, but you really have to look, because it is not at all a very common feature.
Except that's not at all what happened in any way shape or form. The phones have actually been getting narrower and taller. They just claim it's only using up the bezel space. Compare a Galaxy Note 4 to a Galaxy Note 8. You'll find very quickly that the Note 4 has more screen real estate in a shorter wider frame than the Note 8 which has the ridiculous aspect ratio that's even worse than 2:1. And the note series phones are not an outlier either, almost every manufacturer is doing exactly the same thing. You can see it on LG phones OnePlus phones Samsung phones, the list goes on.
The new phones are taller, narrower, have a much smaller screen, and at the same time are bragging about having a larger screen because the ridiculous aspect ratio gives them a larger corner to corner measurement with a smaller overall surface area.
But marketing is powerful, you only have to look at this site, which is theoretically a site for Geeks Who should know better. Despite all of that many posters believe as you do that this has nothing to do with reducing screen sizes and increasing profit margins and is instead simply to use up dead bezel space or some other marketing gimmick which has no basis in reality.
The simple fact is that phones have never been more expensive, and yet screens have been shrinking ever since the aspect ratio changed. And just to add insult to injury not only are the screen smaller the new aspect ratio makes them extremely less usable.
Again, you've bought the marketing hype while completely ignoring reality. The diagonal screen measurement has been increasing, which is the only number they brag about. But the screens have actually been shrinking. As soon as they went away from 16:9 and went to 2:1 (or worse) the total area of the screens shrank.
This is why they do it. Because people like you don't bother to actually compare the reality, and instead believe the marketing department. They spend less to make the phone while you spend more to buy it, and all the while you get screwed by an oddball screen shape and a smaller total screen area.
You missed the part where I said that the phones are actually NARROWER than they were before. My Samsung Galaxy Note 4 had more square inches of screen than any of the newer Note series phones, despite a smaller marketing number. It was also a hair wider, and not nearly as tall. This made it fit better in pockets. It was very comfortable to hold, and could be used one handed. You could also grip it because it didn't need a bulky case getting in your way because the back of the phone wasn't made of super slick polished glass.
They don't want to push bigger screens, that part is obvious because the screens AREN'T bigger, they simply have a bigger diagonal measurement which makes them SOUND bigger in marketing materials. The screens themselves are actually SMALLER than they were a few years ago.
But you obviously bought the hype, hook, line, and sinker. You believe them when they claim that the screens are bigger despite having a smaller overall area, and that they're just using up dead bezel space when in fact they're actively narrowing and lengthening the phones. Good to see marketing works for them, their marketing department will be pleased.
Unfortunately for those of us who actually want a big screen phone, we have to decided between the larger display, or a newer device, you can't have both.
Depends what you're looking for. You're right that "normal" laptops don't. But I just switched my primary computer to a Pixelbook, 4:3 ratio, full Ubuntu linux, and overall a really nice little machine.
There are however a few downsides:
1) they are one of the manufacturers who think glossy screens are a good thing... hint, they aren't, they never have been, and I wish that fad would die!
2) some people will want a physically larger display, though I've been pretty happy with it (though it is only a 13" screen, the taller aspect ratio and high resolution help mitigate that size a lot as long as your eyesight is decent)
3) high end gamers won't be happy with the performance, but then again, not everyone uses those sorts of games.
No, this is the one (and possibly only) time that Apple being about a decade behind the trends (as they usually are) is actually an advantage.
Careful, at this rate we'll reach that aspect ratio pretty quickly. Just imagine how the marketing will spin that "Super-duper-ultra-wide"! all the while saving them lots of money on manufacturing as they only sell monitors based on diagonal inches, not square inches or pixel count.
Not even good for producing content in that format. You want 16:10 for that (room above/below the video for the controls)
My 16:10 32" QHD monitor is dying.... I already opened it up and replaced the backlight, but there's now also something wrong with it where it will sometimes display random bars of colour instead of the picture you're looking for.
I thought that with the new 4K craze I could replace it with something in the 32"-40" range and still be happy by making up for the lost aspect ratio with a bit of a larger display and the extra resolution, but I've discovered that the smallest 4K TVs are too big, and the largest 4K monitors are WAY more expensive than those small 4K TVs.
Not everyone gets to work in your utopia.
My work issues laptops. They must be used for all work related functions and our corporate data is not to be moved to a personal computer. I work from home 3 days a week with the laptop hooked up to a docking station with a reasonable portrait orientation monitor, and the built in screen. It works pretty well actually. Unfortunately 2 days a week I'm forced to go in to the office. I have no assigned desk there, and have to reserve a workstation. They are currently in the process of removing the monitors, keyboards, and mice from those workstations and telling us to just use the laptop. So basically I have to make the laptop function as a reasonable desktop replacement all on it's own. This is not helped by the poor aspect ratio. In my company's defense, they held out on switching to 16:9 laptops for far longer than I thought possible, and the screen they issued me with the docking station was both 4:3, and rotates, but the latest laptops are all 16:9 so they really didn't have much choice on that side of things.
Except that's not how the real world works. If I have a bigger physical screen on my desktop, I can get away with smaller fonts and controls which allow for more content on the screen. On a laptop with it's smaller screen, I have to use bigger fonts and buttons to have the same usability.
Not to mention that 16:9 is a horrible aspect ratio on the desktop too. Luckily for me, I have one monitor that's in portrait mode instead, but that's hard to do on most laptops.
Try to push for an equivalent replacement by square inches or pixel count.
Nonsense.
My pixelbook has a 4:3 aspect screen, and a keyboard that is WIDER than the keyboard on my HP Elitebook that has a 16:9 screen. And yes, it is better for typing on. and all that despite the overall laptop on the HP being wider.
As for "availability of screens"... how many 13-17 inch TVs do you see? The TV market in that size is effectively non-existent. These screens are being produced pretty much exclusively for computer use.
There is one BIG reason though, "Widescreen" sounds like a selling feature as it sounds like they made the screen wider than it otherwise would be instead of the truth which is that they made the screen shorter than it otherwise would be. It allows manufacturers to get a bigger marketing number for screen size, while actually manufacturing fewer pixels than they would otherwise have to to boast the same diagonal size at a better aspect ratio.