Oooh, nice sarcasm, expertly done. But wait, let me get this straight, you have no ego to speak of, and you're certainly not a narcissist, but you're always right and anyone who tries to correct you is wrong, egotistical, and narcissistic?
Sorry, brother, that's not how it works. I come here knowing full well that there are people here who know more about a lot of things than I do and I welcome them to improve my understanding of these topics. If you can't do that, I'm sorry to inform you that you are the one with the problem, not me. Don't look at this as an attack, because it's really not; I'm merely pointing out how you come across when you call everyone around you egotistical and narcissistic. It's called projection and I didn't have to look through your posting history for long to find several examples of it.
A narcissistic egomaniac, such as you see to think I am, wouldn't have looked at you, being too busy looking at himself to do so.
Food for thought, and I'm risking downmods to help you help yourself. You're welcome.
This is probably hard to grasp for the narcissists around here.
It's probably a good thing you don't display an excessive interest in yourself. Certainly, you don't excessively admire your supposed lack of ego enough to brag about it here. No. Not at all.
And we're back on the subject of irony.
And now I'm trolling. But I'm also dead serious -- the general rule is that the first person to bring up ego has the biggest one in the room. You might want to get that checked out.
Hey, yo, I just thought I'd inform you that Audacity is something you would typically use to clean up Ableton's output. It's a different tool for a different purpose. MIDI isn't really a top-priority feature for this kind of tool and is more of a "DAW interfaces for previewing MIDI files suck, so let's make it a little easier to preview them by adding MIDI support to Audaciy" kind of thing.
Because, face it, previewing MIDI files in a DAW sucks.
When you're done working on a song, you've recorded your samples and vocals, arranged everything, added your effects, mixed it, and it still doesn't sound just right... what do you do?
You export individual tracks and finish the job in something like Audacity. That's what it's for -- to clean up messes your DAW doesn't even know it's making.
Using Ableton doesn't make you a professional; knowing what tools to use for every step of the production process does, though. And you clearly don't.
Audio editing software: For editing already-recorded audio. DAW: For recording, arrangement, mastering, and live performance of audio.
You may do some editing from within your DAW but, if you look closer, you'll discover that your DAW's editor is a plugin, most likely VST. I could use your DAW's editor in my DAW and vise-versa, even if you use Pro Tools and I use FL Studio, just as an example, because they're just plugins, not part of the DAW itself.
If you don't like your DAW's bundled editing plugin, you can replace it because it's a plugin; many of us decide to replace it with Audacity which, in all honesty, could probably be made into a plugin as well with minimal work. Then you could use your DAW of choice and Audacity, without ever having to leave your DAW. Since you seem to think that any professional workflow exists entirely within the DAW, this thought should make you happy. If that's the case, you should get right on implementing the VST3 API in Audacity.
Or, you know, realize that what comes out of a DAW is going to see some editing in a tool like Audacity in any professional studio. Sometimes it's to re-normalize the audio, or tweak the dynamic range compression that was applied by the DAW; head and tail silence is added or cut outside of the DAW that put it there (or left it out), effects that simply aren't practical in realtime -- think ring modulation and pre-echo. How, exactly, do you pre-echo my vocals before I sing them? You can do it if you add additional delay, equal to or greater than the length of the pre-echo, but that's not practical in a recording environment where the band might appreciate realtime feedback of how they sound. In fact, the DAWs that I've seen support either of those effects... well, I've only seen support through editor plugins. Probably because, despite being a relatively processor-light effect, it isn't practical in realtime, for the reasons I mentioned.
I've had to look up implementation details on a few of the effects in order to get desired results without hours of experimentation, but I'd have to have done that with any similar program as well so I don't think it really counts. Oh, and by look up I mean read the included documentation. So yeah, I think you nailed it.
So your point is, more or less, because every display can't do it, it's pointless? And why limit yourself to a TN panel? TN in general has shitty viewing angles, so uh... not surprised an HDR TN panel is shit. If you're worried about response times, IPS panels exist which are more than capable of 144Hz, but I implore you to show me a 4K source that hits even 120Hz; why not just go with IPS? Much easier to manage a wide color gamut and decent viewing angles that way.
VA and IPS were developed precisely because TN has poor color reproduction and viewing angles. But, of course, you knew that.
Oh, I think I covered that in my post... Let's assume, for a moment, that someone has a 4K display with HDR support, as I do. Might not, perhaps, that person want some HDR sources available in order to take advantage of it?
If I'm understanding correctly, anyone can implement their own AMP services, whereas with V/ATT you were stuck with their proxies. That said, AMP blows goats as a hobby anyway and I really wish it would just go away. I'm still stocking up on popcorn for reasons mentioned in my prior post.
Onkyo and Pioneer are the two brands I look at first, thank you for confirming the merit to my bias. Yamaha is in the running as well, but I'm not as much of a fan of their consumer gear as I am of their pro and prosumer stuff. The use case for 5.1 and 7.1 is more so I can hear my buddy coming up behind me in CoD, but I do also have a few Blu-Rays where it's actually used quite effectively, so I don't want to discount it right out of the gate.
I looked at a great many HTIB solutions but they all seemed to have the same input limitation you mentioned, so I never bought. Looking back, now I wish I had.
Thanks again for confirming that I'm at least looking in the right direction, and for the tip about the 521 vs 520.
When you made that 7 years claim, I looked it up... HDMI 1.4a has been out for 8 years? Why is there still so much HDMI 1.2 gear not only still on the market, but still being released?!?!?!
This is why TOSLINK is still around.
At any rate, I have no dog in this race. Similar to your quest for a 3DTV, the receivers I wanted have dropped off the market. In my case, it happened while I was transitioning from being a penniless twit to having money to throw at this, and I haven't had time to research the market and figure out what I want to get instead.
Off hand, do you know of any decent 7.1 receivers currently on the market that will properly downmix to 5.1 or 3.1, rather than just dropping those channels if I don't have speakers on them? My setup right now is 3.1 and I'd have to talk the wife into 5.1 in this apartment (she hates having speakers placed around); 7.1 is a no-go here, but we aren't gonna live in this place forever, so that's temporary. I want a receiver that will work for me now, but can also come with me when I move to a place where a 7.1 setup is feasible. ARC with CEC would be nice; I honestly don't know if my TV has ARC support, but it does do CEC quite nicely and, well, coming up on 6 years old it's probably the next thing I'm replacing. The ability to stream Pandora natively would be a plus, but not a deal breaker if not present, though bluetooth with apt-x and AAC support is more or less a must.
I'm not asking you to do my research for me, but if you already know of something that fits that bill it would be greatly appreciated.
Try passing a 4k signal through a receiver with only HDMI 1.2 support so the receiver can get the audio, then tell me "compatibility hasn't really changed". It's people who bought their audio equipment before the current version of HDMI even existed, but who wish to use the features of the current version, who need an audio-only return path, separate from HDMI, so they don't have to upgrade their receiver every time a new version of HDMI comes out and they wish to use it. The audio-only connection allows them to remove the audio receiver from the video path, where it really doesn't belong in the first fucking place.
There's a bit more nuance to it than that. What Verizon and AT&T were doing was much more similar to Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish policy of days gone by. Google's actions with AMP are similar, to a degree, but they're implementing it in an open way; they've taken the Embrace and Extend steps but, because it's open and anyone can implement it, the Extinguish step simply can't work.
What Google has done here is create an open standard that is a superset of HTML5; that is, it includes all of HTML5, plus some custom tags -- which are actually part of the HTML5 specification as well. That is, their extension doesn't break the standard they're extending, thus the failed Extinguish step.
They've also created something that sucks a dog's asshole, so there's that. Their work on AMP is clearly misguided and I'd certainly say it's motivated by greed, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It's misguided in that, while it doesn't break the standard, it does break a lot of the content it is supposed to make easier to access. It's greed-motivated in that, no matter who implements it, Google's name is going to be all over it. It's not evil in that, unlike what Microsoft, Verizon, and AT&T were doing, it's not proprietary and anyone who wants to play along is welcome to do so.
I, for one, am going to sit back and watch the AMP story unfold. Misguided greed usually comes with a hefty dose of karma. Think about it, AMP is a turd; AMP is a turd with Google's mane on it; AMP is a turd that will have Google's name on it no matter who implements it; AMP is a turd that will have Google's name on it no matter how poorly it is implemented; AMP is a turd for which people will blame Google when Mozilla and Microsoft step in and make it worse.
Last week, Ethan Marcotte, an independent web designer, shared how Google describes AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages).
That first sentence includes both an expansion of the acronym and a link for more information. What more do you want? The Wikipedia article to be copied and pasted into the summary?
Java and other bytecode-compiled languages (and, if top performance isn't a concern, most interpreted languages) being architecture-independent is a huge step toward this, actually. Think of the phone being primarily a storage device, with a screen, basic inputs, and enough processing power to do the most common smaller tasks. We would only need the bootloader and runtimes to be compiled for each hardware platform and, truthfully, that could be done by the phone the first time it docks: poll the device we're docking to, download any necessary tools or code, and off we go. The resulting binaries can live on the docking device, rather than the phone; though, if the phone becomes primarily a storage device, one could expect to have several terabytes of storage, so they could be kept on the phone as well -- which would bring the benefit of the phone being able to update any stored binaries for previously-used docking devices on-the-fly.
In such a system, the phone would, when docked, likely still serve as a phone (via bluetooth, or by interfacing with the docking device for audio and dialing purposes), but cease all other function aside from acting as storage for the docking device, which would contain more powerful hadrware.
We literally have the technology today. I'm as baffled as you are that it hasn't taken off yet.
ugh... Botched the link. That first line should be:
You do realize that FaceID is the same technology Microsoft used for Hello, right? It's been cracked. FaceID was cracked before Apple implemented it and we'll see this when security researchers get their hands on it. From the lined article:
After all, even 3-D facial recognition systems have been spoofed before: Two years ago Berlin-based SR Labs used a plaster mold of a test subject's face to cast a model that beat Microsoft's Hello facial recognition system. That setup was implemented in multiple brands of laptops and used the same sort of infrared depth-sensing cameras [as the iPhone X].
I'd venture to guess that the one of us who doesn't understand why FaceID has not yet been publicly put to shame is the one with shit for brains, if you wish to insist that one of us does. That's on you, though.
After reading why you think that, I don't believe that I am, but I'm open to being shown otherwise.
One tap, one twiddle, one push of a button: it's all the same, whether the tap, twiddle or push location is in a row or column of physical buttons around your stereo or on the screen of the infotainment system.
If you 'know', by muscle memory experience, where the physical knob is you can learn, in the same way, where the screen location is.
You can feel your way around physical knobs and buttons; not so with a flat touch screen. Even moreso in a moving vehicle, where you have to compensate for vertical and lateral inertia, or a car driven by two people who prefer the seat in different positions (so it's never really in the same place), all of which renders muscle memory useless.
The basis on which I'm supposedly moving the goal posts is just plain incorrect. Further, the goal posts were set by the AC who said
My Honda has a similar issue. The animations mean i have to wait for it to finish before selecting the next item. Fun while driving.
That is, this was never limited to the volume buttons, or the on/off button; I merely used volume as an example and an AC countered with a different example, but the goal posts, which are simply not mine to move, have remained where they were.
I'll agree: over-busy infotainment screens are dangerous / bad; multi-layer menus can be dangerous / bad / annoying; lack of tactile feedback is bad / annoying.
Let me ask you, what makes those screens dangerous? Is it that you have to take your eyes off of the road to see what you're doing on them? I can't think of anything else, so I'm asking, but I'll continue on the assumption that I am correct, because I know taking your eyes off the road ever while driving is dangerous and I know muscle memory is useless with these displays, compounded by the fact that I'm not even the source for that hypothesis but, rather, and trumpeting (after some careful analysis of the claim) what I've heard countless others who actually have these things in their vehicles say. If you can show me otherwise, please do.
Pointless and ungrounded complaints - they're bad / annoying too...
By the above assumption, I don't believe that my complaint was unfounded. Pointless? Perhaps, if you ignore the fact that I have to share the road with people whose vehicles literally coerce them to take their eyes off the road while driving, or that I may want to buy a new car eventually and would like there to be knobs and buttons, rather than a screen, on the dash when I do. Raising the complaint here would be pointless, except that I come here for discussion, and the complaint started one, I come here to have my views and beliefs challenged, and you've just done that, and I come here to be entertained, which was taken care of by your laughable claim that I've "moved the goal posts".
As of this moment, the "complaint" which you write of has 3 Insightful moderations and no others. A pointless and ungrounded complaint is not insightful; at least three* other people read what I wrote and thought to themselves "yeah, I've experienced that", that's the point of what I wrote, that's the ground on which it is built.
--
*: At least three people with mod points. Statistically speaking, that number will be much higher. Only about half of people actually use their mod points, only about 1% of active users have them at any given time, and only 20% of active users read a given front page article on average. From that, knowing that there are a bit over six million users and that roughly 10% of them still regularly active on the site, we can extrapolate how many moderators read my comment and, from that (and the number of moderations), how
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you've got at least 2 out of the 3.
Oooh, nice sarcasm, expertly done. But wait, let me get this straight, you have no ego to speak of, and you're certainly not a narcissist, but you're always right and anyone who tries to correct you is wrong, egotistical, and narcissistic?
Sorry, brother, that's not how it works. I come here knowing full well that there are people here who know more about a lot of things than I do and I welcome them to improve my understanding of these topics. If you can't do that, I'm sorry to inform you that you are the one with the problem, not me. Don't look at this as an attack, because it's really not; I'm merely pointing out how you come across when you call everyone around you egotistical and narcissistic. It's called projection and I didn't have to look through your posting history for long to find several examples of it.
A narcissistic egomaniac, such as you see to think I am, wouldn't have looked at you, being too busy looking at himself to do so.
Food for thought, and I'm risking downmods to help you help yourself. You're welcome.
Talk about false idols, you choose to worship the trolling abilities of one who wasn't even trolling.
Of course, as you said here:
This is probably hard to grasp for the narcissists around here.
It's probably a good thing you don't display an excessive interest in yourself. Certainly, you don't excessively admire your supposed lack of ego enough to brag about it here. No. Not at all.
And we're back on the subject of irony.
And now I'm trolling. But I'm also dead serious -- the general rule is that the first person to bring up ego has the biggest one in the room. You might want to get that checked out.
Careful with the nationalist humor, you don't want to be labeled racist like Hognoxious.
Oh, and thanks for the laugh.
I don't have a big ego like the rest of you.
Yup. Your ego is so not huge that you have to brag about how not huge it is like some egomaniac braggart.
Hey, yo, I just thought I'd inform you that Audacity is something you would typically use to clean up Ableton's output. It's a different tool for a different purpose. MIDI isn't really a top-priority feature for this kind of tool and is more of a "DAW interfaces for previewing MIDI files suck, so let's make it a little easier to preview them by adding MIDI support to Audaciy" kind of thing.
Because, face it, previewing MIDI files in a DAW sucks.
When you're done working on a song, you've recorded your samples and vocals, arranged everything, added your effects, mixed it, and it still doesn't sound just right... what do you do?
You export individual tracks and finish the job in something like Audacity. That's what it's for -- to clean up messes your DAW doesn't even know it's making.
Using Ableton doesn't make you a professional; knowing what tools to use for every step of the production process does, though. And you clearly don't.
Audio editing software: For editing already-recorded audio.
DAW: For recording, arrangement, mastering, and live performance of audio.
You may do some editing from within your DAW but, if you look closer, you'll discover that your DAW's editor is a plugin, most likely VST. I could use your DAW's editor in my DAW and vise-versa, even if you use Pro Tools and I use FL Studio, just as an example, because they're just plugins, not part of the DAW itself.
If you don't like your DAW's bundled editing plugin, you can replace it because it's a plugin; many of us decide to replace it with Audacity which, in all honesty, could probably be made into a plugin as well with minimal work. Then you could use your DAW of choice and Audacity, without ever having to leave your DAW. Since you seem to think that any professional workflow exists entirely within the DAW, this thought should make you happy. If that's the case, you should get right on implementing the VST3 API in Audacity.
Or, you know, realize that what comes out of a DAW is going to see some editing in a tool like Audacity in any professional studio. Sometimes it's to re-normalize the audio, or tweak the dynamic range compression that was applied by the DAW; head and tail silence is added or cut outside of the DAW that put it there (or left it out), effects that simply aren't practical in realtime -- think ring modulation and pre-echo. How, exactly, do you pre-echo my vocals before I sing them? You can do it if you add additional delay, equal to or greater than the length of the pre-echo, but that's not practical in a recording environment where the band might appreciate realtime feedback of how they sound. In fact, the DAWs that I've seen support either of those effects... well, I've only seen support through editor plugins. Probably because, despite being a relatively processor-light effect, it isn't practical in realtime, for the reasons I mentioned.
I've had to look up implementation details on a few of the effects in order to get desired results without hours of experimentation, but I'd have to have done that with any similar program as well so I don't think it really counts. Oh, and by look up I mean read the included documentation. So yeah, I think you nailed it.
So your point is, more or less, because every display can't do it, it's pointless? And why limit yourself to a TN panel? TN in general has shitty viewing angles, so uh... not surprised an HDR TN panel is shit. If you're worried about response times, IPS panels exist which are more than capable of 144Hz, but I implore you to show me a 4K source that hits even 120Hz; why not just go with IPS? Much easier to manage a wide color gamut and decent viewing angles that way.
VA and IPS were developed precisely because TN has poor color reproduction and viewing angles. But, of course, you knew that.
You just thought I didn't.
Oh, I think I covered that in my post... Let's assume, for a moment, that someone has a 4K display with HDR support, as I do. Might not, perhaps, that person want some HDR sources available in order to take advantage of it?
Huge difference between HDR and non-HDR color and contrast. Certainly noticeable from more than 3ft away on practically any size screen.
There's really no reason for HDR to be tied to the 4K standard, but it is, so... If you want it (and a lot of people do), you need 4K-capable gear.
If I'm understanding correctly, anyone can implement their own AMP services, whereas with V/ATT you were stuck with their proxies. That said, AMP blows goats as a hobby anyway and I really wish it would just go away. I'm still stocking up on popcorn for reasons mentioned in my prior post.
Onkyo and Pioneer are the two brands I look at first, thank you for confirming the merit to my bias. Yamaha is in the running as well, but I'm not as much of a fan of their consumer gear as I am of their pro and prosumer stuff. The use case for 5.1 and 7.1 is more so I can hear my buddy coming up behind me in CoD, but I do also have a few Blu-Rays where it's actually used quite effectively, so I don't want to discount it right out of the gate.
I looked at a great many HTIB solutions but they all seemed to have the same input limitation you mentioned, so I never bought. Looking back, now I wish I had.
Thanks again for confirming that I'm at least looking in the right direction, and for the tip about the 521 vs 520.
You seem to have dropped some of your post...
When you made that 7 years claim, I looked it up... HDMI 1.4a has been out for 8 years? Why is there still so much HDMI 1.2 gear not only still on the market, but still being released?!?!?!
This is why TOSLINK is still around.
At any rate, I have no dog in this race. Similar to your quest for a 3DTV, the receivers I wanted have dropped off the market. In my case, it happened while I was transitioning from being a penniless twit to having money to throw at this, and I haven't had time to research the market and figure out what I want to get instead.
Off hand, do you know of any decent 7.1 receivers currently on the market that will properly downmix to 5.1 or 3.1, rather than just dropping those channels if I don't have speakers on them? My setup right now is 3.1 and I'd have to talk the wife into 5.1 in this apartment (she hates having speakers placed around); 7.1 is a no-go here, but we aren't gonna live in this place forever, so that's temporary. I want a receiver that will work for me now, but can also come with me when I move to a place where a 7.1 setup is feasible. ARC with CEC would be nice; I honestly don't know if my TV has ARC support, but it does do CEC quite nicely and, well, coming up on 6 years old it's probably the next thing I'm replacing. The ability to stream Pandora natively would be a plus, but not a deal breaker if not present, though bluetooth with apt-x and AAC support is more or less a must.
I'm not asking you to do my research for me, but if you already know of something that fits that bill it would be greatly appreciated.
Also provided that your TV and receiver both support ARC. A surprising many still do not.
Try passing a 4k signal through a receiver with only HDMI 1.2 support so the receiver can get the audio, then tell me "compatibility hasn't really changed". It's people who bought their audio equipment before the current version of HDMI even existed, but who wish to use the features of the current version, who need an audio-only return path, separate from HDMI, so they don't have to upgrade their receiver every time a new version of HDMI comes out and they wish to use it. The audio-only connection allows them to remove the audio receiver from the video path, where it really doesn't belong in the first fucking place.
Follow?
There's a bit more nuance to it than that. What Verizon and AT&T were doing was much more similar to Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish policy of days gone by. Google's actions with AMP are similar, to a degree, but they're implementing it in an open way; they've taken the Embrace and Extend steps but, because it's open and anyone can implement it, the Extinguish step simply can't work.
What Google has done here is create an open standard that is a superset of HTML5; that is, it includes all of HTML5, plus some custom tags -- which are actually part of the HTML5 specification as well. That is, their extension doesn't break the standard they're extending, thus the failed Extinguish step.
They've also created something that sucks a dog's asshole, so there's that. Their work on AMP is clearly misguided and I'd certainly say it's motivated by greed, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It's misguided in that, while it doesn't break the standard, it does break a lot of the content it is supposed to make easier to access. It's greed-motivated in that, no matter who implements it, Google's name is going to be all over it. It's not evil in that, unlike what Microsoft, Verizon, and AT&T were doing, it's not proprietary and anyone who wants to play along is welcome to do so.
I, for one, am going to sit back and watch the AMP story unfold. Misguided greed usually comes with a hefty dose of karma. Think about it, AMP is a turd; AMP is a turd with Google's mane on it; AMP is a turd that will have Google's name on it no matter who implements it; AMP is a turd that will have Google's name on it no matter how poorly it is implemented; AMP is a turd for which people will blame Google when Mozilla and Microsoft step in and make it worse.
Grab the popcorn, my friend.
When you finally pull the trigger on a Threadripper build, I bet it will run Crysis like a beast.
That's more or less what my 16 cores and 64GB or RAM do 90% of the time, to be quite honest.
Last week, Ethan Marcotte, an independent web designer, shared how Google describes AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages).
That first sentence includes both an expansion of the acronym and a link for more information. What more do you want? The Wikipedia article to be copied and pasted into the summary?
Java and other bytecode-compiled languages (and, if top performance isn't a concern, most interpreted languages) being architecture-independent is a huge step toward this, actually. Think of the phone being primarily a storage device, with a screen, basic inputs, and enough processing power to do the most common smaller tasks. We would only need the bootloader and runtimes to be compiled for each hardware platform and, truthfully, that could be done by the phone the first time it docks: poll the device we're docking to, download any necessary tools or code, and off we go. The resulting binaries can live on the docking device, rather than the phone; though, if the phone becomes primarily a storage device, one could expect to have several terabytes of storage, so they could be kept on the phone as well -- which would bring the benefit of the phone being able to update any stored binaries for previously-used docking devices on-the-fly.
In such a system, the phone would, when docked, likely still serve as a phone (via bluetooth, or by interfacing with the docking device for audio and dialing purposes), but cease all other function aside from acting as storage for the docking device, which would contain more powerful hadrware.
We literally have the technology today. I'm as baffled as you are that it hasn't taken off yet.
You do realize that FaceID is the same technology Microsoft used for Hello, right? It's been cracked. FaceID was cracked before Apple implemented it and we'll see this when security researchers get their hands on it. From the lined article:
After all, even 3-D facial recognition systems have been spoofed before: Two years ago Berlin-based SR Labs used a plaster mold of a test subject's face to cast a model that beat Microsoft's Hello facial recognition system. That setup was implemented in multiple brands of laptops and used the same sort of infrared depth-sensing cameras [as the iPhone X].
I'd venture to guess that the one of us who doesn't understand why FaceID has not yet been publicly put to shame is the one with shit for brains, if you wish to insist that one of us does. That's on you, though.
In fairness you're moving the goal posts here.
After reading why you think that, I don't believe that I am, but I'm open to being shown otherwise.
One tap, one twiddle, one push of a button: it's all the same, whether the tap, twiddle or push location is in a row or column of physical buttons around your stereo or on the screen of the infotainment system.
If you 'know', by muscle memory experience, where the physical knob is you can learn, in the same way, where the screen location is.
You can feel your way around physical knobs and buttons; not so with a flat touch screen. Even moreso in a moving vehicle, where you have to compensate for vertical and lateral inertia, or a car driven by two people who prefer the seat in different positions (so it's never really in the same place), all of which renders muscle memory useless.
The basis on which I'm supposedly moving the goal posts is just plain incorrect. Further, the goal posts were set by the AC who said
My Honda has a similar issue. The animations mean i have to wait for it to finish before selecting the next item. Fun while driving.
That is, this was never limited to the volume buttons, or the on/off button; I merely used volume as an example and an AC countered with a different example, but the goal posts, which are simply not mine to move, have remained where they were.
I'll agree: over-busy infotainment screens are dangerous / bad; multi-layer menus can be dangerous / bad / annoying; lack of tactile feedback is bad / annoying.
Let me ask you, what makes those screens dangerous? Is it that you have to take your eyes off of the road to see what you're doing on them? I can't think of anything else, so I'm asking, but I'll continue on the assumption that I am correct, because I know taking your eyes off the road ever while driving is dangerous and I know muscle memory is useless with these displays, compounded by the fact that I'm not even the source for that hypothesis but, rather, and trumpeting (after some careful analysis of the claim) what I've heard countless others who actually have these things in their vehicles say. If you can show me otherwise, please do.
Pointless and ungrounded complaints - they're bad / annoying too...
By the above assumption, I don't believe that my complaint was unfounded. Pointless? Perhaps, if you ignore the fact that I have to share the road with people whose vehicles literally coerce them to take their eyes off the road while driving, or that I may want to buy a new car eventually and would like there to be knobs and buttons, rather than a screen, on the dash when I do. Raising the complaint here would be pointless, except that I come here for discussion, and the complaint started one, I come here to have my views and beliefs challenged, and you've just done that, and I come here to be entertained, which was taken care of by your laughable claim that I've "moved the goal posts".
As of this moment, the "complaint" which you write of has 3 Insightful moderations and no others. A pointless and ungrounded complaint is not insightful; at least three* other people read what I wrote and thought to themselves "yeah, I've experienced that", that's the point of what I wrote, that's the ground on which it is built.
--
*: At least three people with mod points. Statistically speaking, that number will be much higher. Only about half of people actually use their mod points, only about 1% of active users have them at any given time, and only 20% of active users read a given front page article on average. From that, knowing that there are a bit over six million users and that roughly 10% of them still regularly active on the site, we can extrapolate how many moderators read my comment and, from that (and the number of moderations), how
YOU might. I won't, because I'm not familiar with the layout of the display. What about literally ever other function, though?