peredv

Apple is fine but the world needs Rossmann and alike to keep them on their toes.
 
Repairability is great but waterproofing, durability and stability are better.
 
No need to fix something if it doesn’t easily break.
 
In the end go with what works for you and not based on one persons opinion.

See:
And tyvm boggy77, I didn't think to check the "support"-page when "tech-specs" looked so definite.

These below were all developed by Hitachi

Super TFT (IPS) - 1996 Wide viewing angle 100/100 Base level Most panels also support true 8-bit per channel color. These improvements came at the cost of a slower response time, initially about 50 ms. IPS panels were also extremely expensive.

Super-IPS (S-IPS) - 1998 has all the benefits of IPS technology with the addition of improved pixel refresh timing.

Advanced Super-IPS (AS-IPS) - 2002 Improves substantially on the contrast ratio of traditional S-IPS panels to the point where they are second only to some S-PVAs.

IPS-Provectus (IPS-Pro) - 2004 The latest panel from IPS Alpha Technology with a wider color gamut and contrast ratio matching PVA and ASV displays without off-angle glowing.

IPS alpha (IPS-Pro) - 2008 High contrast ratio Next generation of IPS-Pro

IPS alpha next gen (IPS-Pro) - 2010 High contrast ratio Technology transfer from Hitachi to Panasonic



These below were all developed by LG

Horizontal IPS (H-IPS) - 2007 Improves contrast ratio by twisting electrode plane layout. Also introduces an optional Advanced True White polarizing film from NEC, to make white look more natural. This is used in professional/photography LCDs.

Enhanced IPS (E-IPS) - 2009 Wider aperture for light transmission, enabling the use of lower-power, cheaper backlights. Improves diagonal viewing angle and further reduce response time to 5ms.

Professional IPS (P-IPS) - 2010 Offer 1.07 billion colours. More possible orientations per sub-pixel (1024 as opposed to 256) and produces a better true colour depth.

Advanced High Performance IPS (AH-IPS) - 2011 Improved colour accuracy, increased resolution and PPI, and greater light transmission for lower power consumption
 

It's unlisted.
 

Laughs in Firefox

Hey there!
Thank you so much for bringing more attention to LG G3. I've been developing for more than a year now and it made me really happy seeing my device on Linus Media Group! We also have Android Pie available to install which is almost bugless, but there are still some issues related to graphics renderer and stuff.
You might also want to try some others ROMs which add more features if you're into that sort of thing - all with HardStyl3r quality. Check the XDA forums!
https://forum.xda-developers.com/lg-g3/development
Also, it's worth mentioning we have managed to enable Treble on our device, you can check that out too! (as far as I know, it's available for d852 and f400)
https://forum.xda-developers.com/lg-g3/development/guide-create-vendor-partition-lg-f400-t3903385
https://forum.xda-developers.com/lg-g3/development/rom-treble-basic-rom-based-lineageos-15-t3906025
 
Greetings, and happy flashing!

This one could probably have been researched a whole lot better..
 
1:35 "Higher frequency can penetrate further into objects than lower energy far infrared or radiowaves"
 
Soo you're saying that visible light - which is even higher frequency than infrared -  goes through walls but wi-fi - which is radiowaves - stops at the skin of an apple? That doesn't seem like the reality I live in 

This whole mr. moose vs. Amazonsucks side-thread sure has been an interesting read.
 
I mean it all started with
 
A: "I think we have enough data to say genetically engineered food is objectively safe and anything else is fake news" - *who's to say what is enough?* -
 
B: "I don't, we only have 24 years of data" - *as if that's a small amount*
 
And then, doing his best to show anyone willing to read through the posts that bias and pride comes before all; mr. Moose has gone on a 2 page long semantics tirade about how "no, I actually was technically right about my wording" instead of admitting we've "only" been eating Genetically engineered food since 94' and continuing the discussion of whether it should be considered fake news tying into the article above.
 
Either take the position that 24 years is enough research and that that's an example of OBJECTIVE FACT that you tout in your arguing for this ruling, or change your opinion on whether GMO foods* (read: genetically engineered edibles produced by gene splicing or other techniques not previously available until the 20th century) should be considered fake-news.
 
Personally I have now read enough petty ad-hominems and condescension directed at Amazonsucks to say that *I have*(read: probably shouldn't base any state-decisions on this one) been convinced that a person, committee or otherwise controlling instance of the state should never be in control of judging what is and is not fake-news. It's simply not possible to do so without bias.
 
 
Oh by the way, here's the FDAs stance on it:
*https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm
I know I'm cutting it short and they pretty much go on to say that you should always use Genetic engineering to refer to what we are talking about here, but it's also an admittance that GMO is sometimes used in its place.
 
 
Anyway, those are my two cents. I agreed with you for a lot of your posts mr. moose, but too much of these:
 
"Sorry that is too hard for you to understand." - insulting opponents intelligence.
"half of what you post is just irrational banter" - another one, this time using insult to dismiss post instead of breaking down opponents argument.
"Argue and dismiss whatever you want, the facts speak for themselves" - Appealing to universal facts without presenting said facts in the same post.
"Good thing science doesn't care what you think." - Appealing to glorious science.
 
They break down your own arguments by making you seem like some "mightier-than-thou" jerk.
 
Try to restrict yourself next time and you might win over more readers to your side. Argumentation, after all, is really for the 3. party sake, not the two sides arguing.

I'd argue that the best MP3 players were the iPod classic's

We have very different uses for our phones, I'll tell you that much 
I don't want to modify, install emulators, utorrent or other shady stuff on my phone and I don't use disk space beyond 50 spotify-tracks synced and some pictures, frankly 64Gig is more than I'll ever use.
 
I think(? might be wrong here) that you're doing it wrong? I'm not entirely sure of what you want to do though. I was saying that upgrading from old iphone to new iphone was very easy. Do you mean like downloading stuff on your phone and transferring to a PC? Because if you do then yeah sure, that can be a pain. Not that I see why you would want to..
 
But 4g speeds is not something I care about above a certain point, the most I ever download outside of wi-fi is an audiobook or some video like youtube and netflix and the audiobook can start streaming from 5MB anyways.
 
Actually I was worried about this too. My password manager was linked to my fingerprint. But when an app calls for a fingerprint scan the phone takes that to mean faceID automatically and everything works just as normal with face instead of finger.
 
To add to that, I'm also way less cautious about letting Apple have stuff like my face and fingers in their database considering their entire business isn't built on selling personal information.

I agree that GE is more technically accurate.
 
I replied to @mr moose claiming that we have been eating GMO food for 40 years. He backed up that claim by linking to articles about 40 year old GE bacterial insulin. THAT kind of "GMO"(GE) food was first released in 1994, and 24 is not 40.
 
For the purpose of this discussion HE defined the terms, and HE defined GE=GMO by supporting the claim that we've been eating GMO food for 40 years.
 
He then proceded to backtrack, move the goal posts, and use ad hominem insulting tactics instead of retracting his demonstrably false statement. Noice scientific discussion. Real facebook echo chamber level of discourse.

I like it,  as someone who has experienced political life before the internet,  I can assure you the internet and fake news is taking a toll on society.  You know how many people won't go and see a doctor now because some facebook guru has convinced them they are all evil money hungry devices of "big pharma"? Or the number of kids who's parents shove bleach up their ass trying to cure autism? What about the fact people who think google "is" the internet are also being mislead regarding political matters? 
 
Absolutely something has to be done, if we don't get educated people into the government and educate people,  the next generation of voters will only be voting for politicians who believe in aromatherapy and who are happy to sell short medical science in favor of acupuncture courses.

Apple used to be really really great, their products were among the best you could get and it just worked. I still love macOS, it's a great OS, the Unix console is super useful and it's pretty quick. My issue with Apple lies in ther "recent" hardware policies. The last amazing Macbook imho was the 2012 model. Sure, Retina displays are nice but along with it came the policy to not be able to upgrade it anymore. While soldered memory is sadly a thing nowadays just to save another 2mm (while sacrificing cooling at the same time) a soldered SSD is just utterly stupid. If that was it then maybe it would have been ok but no, they just said screw everyone and bumped the price. Just look at those ridiculous prices: for the money you need to spend on an i7 13" Macbook Pro with 16GB of memory and 512GB SSD you have to pay about $1000 ontop of a top of the line Dell or HP Ultrabook. There's no real difference in the hardware, you just have to. 
 
Or look at their iPhones – iOS upgrades are regularly more or less breaking older iPhones just to make you to get a new one. Yes, other manufacturers do throttle your phone to some extent as well but I never experienced it so severely as I did on several iOS products. 
 
And then there are the huge dick moves of just dropping support for technologies they actually pushed into market and made other companies adopt. Think of OpenCL – they were one of the biggest supporters and now just dropped support. Even worse: OpenGL support got dropped as well. It's the only damn true cross-plattform graphics API. While OpenGL is far form perfect (yet definitely not as bad as some people might want to make it look) it just is the only cross-plattform API. Other vendors jumped on the Vulkan train but not Apple, no no. If you want to keep developing for Apple products you better adopt their own Metal API. They're just trying to lock people and developers in their eco system. Instead of adopting Vulkan you have to use their product to use any graphics acceleration on iOS and macOS. Sure, there will be some translation layers coming up, but that doesn't make it any better. Thanks Apple … I seriously wonder how it will turn out with WebGL which is based on OpenGL ES. 
 
In the end they just want you to spend a 50-100% premium on products that need very special attention from developers which will ultimately just lead to less software.
 
And when there's an issue with your Mac or iPhone, Apple folks are just denying it as long as they can and are trying to tell you it was your fault. Thanks, but no thanks. macOS is just not worth it for me. 
 
 

If the bars are the correct sizes then here are the "derounded" numbers:
 
one px = 100/56px = 1.79% of a fps
The Core I7 8700K scored a 17 + 26px meaning it got a score of (26px * 0.0179) + 17 = 17.46 fps - when rounding this would still be 17 but just barely.
The Ryzen 3 1300X then scored a 16 + (47.5px▲ * 0.0179) = 16.85 fps
 
▲NOTE: I know pixels can't really be half but the last pixel of the ryzen bar is of about 50% opacity, I took this to mean .5 of a pixel

This one could probably have been researched a whole lot better..
 
1:35 "Higher frequency can penetrate further into objects than lower energy far infrared or radiowaves"
 
Soo you're saying that visible light - which is even higher frequency than infrared -  goes through walls but wi-fi - which is radiowaves - stops at the skin of an apple? That doesn't seem like the reality I live in