How's the backlighting, I hear one of the main issues with them is that they tend to have really inconsistent backlighting, but if it ain't no thang....
The backlighting is definitely why it was rejected from premium panels. The light bleed is not great and one corner is noticeably brighter on a black screen.
THAT SAID
It's a million times better than any other $350 monitor. Most cheap monitors have just as bad of light leakage and non-uniformity. This is almost comically better. It's literally a $1000 panel with a slightly funky backlight. I love it.
Edit: Here's as bad as it gets on a totally black screen.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
Dammmmmmit trapped in a booth with dudes must eacapeeeeeeeee gimme another vodka so I can fly awayyyyy
Bless your heart.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I mean I get that people become super attached to models and labels and categories, but it's still weird to me. I fundamentally accept that models are distillations of reality, and labels and categories are ad-hoc mechanisms designed to cluster things such that we may make predictions based on other traits. They're useful, but fundamentally lose the fine focus of reality and thus will have things that are categorized where we wouldn't expect them, or our categories fail in some other way. But since they're just our self-imposed ideas over a very unusual and strange world, it makes sense that that would happen. We're just trying to impose things to order a chaotic world.
So my instinct is to say "yeah, this is pretty much just a tool and fails to account for plenty of things," while other people try frantically to save what amounts to figments of their imaginations.
We tend to have fucked up ideas of similarity. We tend to have fucked up ideas of what constitutes a "thing".
Pretty much. Most often we take a cluster of common correlates, assign them to once distinct category, then flip out when the correlates are either not correlated well in one case or are correlated together mostly, except for one that we assign special importance to.
Also broad biological classification is, thanks to genetic analysis of evolutionary lineages, becoming less arbitrary. "Anything from this set of ancestors is a mammal" is pretty good. I'd argue that the problem there isn't mammalia being a bad class, it's that what a scientist uses to classify a mammal rigorously is different from what a lay person does without thought.
This is why I think it would be very interested to have access to the possible world in which Plato and Aristotle never happened: Human beings without reified categories, who priviledge the particular above the abstract general categorization.
I don't know how people language in that possible world, or go to the store and buy ingredients for a cake, but I still suppose it's an awesome possible world.
Just an entire species of denoters whose primary lingustic designation is "this".
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
I mean I get that people become super attached to models and labels and categories, but it's still weird to me. I fundamentally accept that models are distillations of reality, and labels and categories are ad-hoc mechanisms designed to cluster things such that we may make predictions based on other traits. They're useful, but fundamentally lose the fine focus of reality and thus will have things that are categorized where we wouldn't expect them, or our categories fail in some other way. But since they're just our self-imposed ideas over a very unusual and strange world, it makes sense that that would happen. We're just trying to impose things to order a chaotic world.
So my instinct is to say "yeah, this is pretty much just a tool and fails to account for plenty of things," while other people try frantically to save what amounts to figments of their imaginations.
We tend to have fucked up ideas of similarity. We tend to have fucked up ideas of what constitutes a "thing".
Pretty much. Most often we take a cluster of common correlates, assign them to once distinct category, then flip out when the correlates are either not correlated well in one case or are correlated together mostly, except for one that we assign special importance to.
Also broad biological classification is, thanks to genetic analysis of evolutionary lineages, becoming less arbitrary. "Anything from this set of ancestors is a mammal" is pretty good. I'd argue that the problem there isn't mammalia being a bad class, it's that what a scientist uses to classify a mammal rigorously is different from what a lay person does without thought.
This is why I think it would be very interested to have access to the possible world in which Plato and Aristotle never happened: Human beings without reified categories, who priviledge the particular above the abstract general categorization.
I don't know how people language in that possible world, or go to the store and buy ingredients for a cake, but I still suppose it's an awesome possible world.
Just an entire species of denoters whose primary lingustic designation is "this".
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
So long Freudian penis envy; hello non linguistic descriptors!
I think it's going to take a long time for what _J_ proposes to be something accepted or even discussed broadly in society. It's a sad state of affairs but at least somewhat understandable.
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
I wish liquor stores didn't close so early in this tiny little town. I want vodka.
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Explaining emotion and state through some new non linguistic means would probably be the ideal; telepathy or some kind of mind-consciousness melding. A kind of intimacy that might even make our species unable to bring harm against itself again, or at least make it much harder to categorize the other.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I mean I get that people become super attached to models and labels and categories, but it's still weird to me. I fundamentally accept that models are distillations of reality, and labels and categories are ad-hoc mechanisms designed to cluster things such that we may make predictions based on other traits. They're useful, but fundamentally lose the fine focus of reality and thus will have things that are categorized where we wouldn't expect them, or our categories fail in some other way. But since they're just our self-imposed ideas over a very unusual and strange world, it makes sense that that would happen. We're just trying to impose things to order a chaotic world.
So my instinct is to say "yeah, this is pretty much just a tool and fails to account for plenty of things," while other people try frantically to save what amounts to figments of their imaginations.
We tend to have fucked up ideas of similarity. We tend to have fucked up ideas of what constitutes a "thing".
Pretty much. Most often we take a cluster of common correlates, assign them to once distinct category, then flip out when the correlates are either not correlated well in one case or are correlated together mostly, except for one that we assign special importance to.
Also broad biological classification is, thanks to genetic analysis of evolutionary lineages, becoming less arbitrary. "Anything from this set of ancestors is a mammal" is pretty good. I'd argue that the problem there isn't mammalia being a bad class, it's that what a scientist uses to classify a mammal rigorously is different from what a lay person does without thought.
This is why I think it would be very interested to have access to the possible world in which Plato and Aristotle never happened: Human beings without reified categories, who priviledge the particular above the abstract general categorization.
I don't know how people language in that possible world, or go to the store and buy ingredients for a cake, but I still suppose it's an awesome possible world.
Just an entire species of denoters whose primary lingustic designation is "this".
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
So long Freudian penis envy; hello non linguistic descriptors!
I think it's going to take a long time for what _J_ proposes to be something accepted or even discussed broadly in society. It's a sad state of affairs but at least somewhat understandable.
Ludious had a somewhat interesting story about how in the south it can be easy to get people on board with trans stuff by treating it as a medical issue; something they already understand and accept. Contrast that with homosexuality, which can't really be cast so. I think it's the same thing here, go too far and you're crazy. You have to get there by playing a bullshit game and basically hopping along a bunch of discrete points towards the end game.
+1
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
I mean I get that people become super attached to models and labels and categories, but it's still weird to me. I fundamentally accept that models are distillations of reality, and labels and categories are ad-hoc mechanisms designed to cluster things such that we may make predictions based on other traits. They're useful, but fundamentally lose the fine focus of reality and thus will have things that are categorized where we wouldn't expect them, or our categories fail in some other way. But since they're just our self-imposed ideas over a very unusual and strange world, it makes sense that that would happen. We're just trying to impose things to order a chaotic world.
So my instinct is to say "yeah, this is pretty much just a tool and fails to account for plenty of things," while other people try frantically to save what amounts to figments of their imaginations.
We tend to have fucked up ideas of similarity. We tend to have fucked up ideas of what constitutes a "thing".
Pretty much. Most often we take a cluster of common correlates, assign them to once distinct category, then flip out when the correlates are either not correlated well in one case or are correlated together mostly, except for one that we assign special importance to.
Also broad biological classification is, thanks to genetic analysis of evolutionary lineages, becoming less arbitrary. "Anything from this set of ancestors is a mammal" is pretty good. I'd argue that the problem there isn't mammalia being a bad class, it's that what a scientist uses to classify a mammal rigorously is different from what a lay person does without thought.
This is why I think it would be very interested to have access to the possible world in which Plato and Aristotle never happened: Human beings without reified categories, who priviledge the particular above the abstract general categorization.
I don't know how people language in that possible world, or go to the store and buy ingredients for a cake, but I still suppose it's an awesome possible world.
Just an entire species of denoters whose primary lingustic designation is "this".
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
So long Freudian penis envy; hello non linguistic descriptors!
I think it's going to take a long time for what _J_ proposes to be something accepted or even discussed broadly in society. It's a sad state of affairs but at least somewhat understandable.
Ludious had a somewhat interesting story about how in the south it can be easy to get people on board with trans stuff by treating it as a medical issue; something they already understand and accept. Contrast that with homosexuality, which can't really be cast so. I think it's the same thing here, go too far and you're crazy. You have to get there by playing a bullshit game and basically hopping along a bunch of discrete points towards the end game.
Explaining emotion and state through some new non linguistic means would probably be the ideal; telepathy or some kind of mind-consciousness melding. A kind of intimacy that might even make our species unable to bring harm against itself again, or at least make it much harder to categorize the other.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
Sure.
Though, we don't need to get to that stage in order to solve most of the problems. We already have many of the words we need. It's just a matter of getting people to abandon the simple binary categories and utilize longer self-descriptions that apply to shorter spans of time.
+1
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
I mean I get that people become super attached to models and labels and categories, but it's still weird to me. I fundamentally accept that models are distillations of reality, and labels and categories are ad-hoc mechanisms designed to cluster things such that we may make predictions based on other traits. They're useful, but fundamentally lose the fine focus of reality and thus will have things that are categorized where we wouldn't expect them, or our categories fail in some other way. But since they're just our self-imposed ideas over a very unusual and strange world, it makes sense that that would happen. We're just trying to impose things to order a chaotic world.
So my instinct is to say "yeah, this is pretty much just a tool and fails to account for plenty of things," while other people try frantically to save what amounts to figments of their imaginations.
We tend to have fucked up ideas of similarity. We tend to have fucked up ideas of what constitutes a "thing".
Pretty much. Most often we take a cluster of common correlates, assign them to once distinct category, then flip out when the correlates are either not correlated well in one case or are correlated together mostly, except for one that we assign special importance to.
Also broad biological classification is, thanks to genetic analysis of evolutionary lineages, becoming less arbitrary. "Anything from this set of ancestors is a mammal" is pretty good. I'd argue that the problem there isn't mammalia being a bad class, it's that what a scientist uses to classify a mammal rigorously is different from what a lay person does without thought.
This is why I think it would be very interested to have access to the possible world in which Plato and Aristotle never happened: Human beings without reified categories, who priviledge the particular above the abstract general categorization.
I don't know how people language in that possible world, or go to the store and buy ingredients for a cake, but I still suppose it's an awesome possible world.
Just an entire species of denoters whose primary lingustic designation is "this".
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
So long Freudian penis envy; hello non linguistic descriptors!
I think it's going to take a long time for what _J_ proposes to be something accepted or even discussed broadly in society. It's a sad state of affairs but at least somewhat understandable.
Ludious had a somewhat interesting story about how in the south it can be easy to get people on board with trans stuff by treating it as a medical issue; something they already understand and accept. Contrast that with homosexuality, which can't really be cast so. I think it's the same thing here, go too far and you're crazy. You have to get there by playing a bullshit game and basically hopping along a bunch of discrete points towards the end game.
I mean I get that people become super attached to models and labels and categories, but it's still weird to me. I fundamentally accept that models are distillations of reality, and labels and categories are ad-hoc mechanisms designed to cluster things such that we may make predictions based on other traits. They're useful, but fundamentally lose the fine focus of reality and thus will have things that are categorized where we wouldn't expect them, or our categories fail in some other way. But since they're just our self-imposed ideas over a very unusual and strange world, it makes sense that that would happen. We're just trying to impose things to order a chaotic world.
So my instinct is to say "yeah, this is pretty much just a tool and fails to account for plenty of things," while other people try frantically to save what amounts to figments of their imaginations.
We tend to have fucked up ideas of similarity. We tend to have fucked up ideas of what constitutes a "thing".
Pretty much. Most often we take a cluster of common correlates, assign them to once distinct category, then flip out when the correlates are either not correlated well in one case or are correlated together mostly, except for one that we assign special importance to.
Also broad biological classification is, thanks to genetic analysis of evolutionary lineages, becoming less arbitrary. "Anything from this set of ancestors is a mammal" is pretty good. I'd argue that the problem there isn't mammalia being a bad class, it's that what a scientist uses to classify a mammal rigorously is different from what a lay person does without thought.
This is why I think it would be very interested to have access to the possible world in which Plato and Aristotle never happened: Human beings without reified categories, who priviledge the particular above the abstract general categorization.
I don't know how people language in that possible world, or go to the store and buy ingredients for a cake, but I still suppose it's an awesome possible world.
Just an entire species of denoters whose primary lingustic designation is "this".
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
So long Freudian penis envy; hello non linguistic descriptors!
I think it's going to take a long time for what _J_ proposes to be something accepted or even discussed broadly in society. It's a sad state of affairs but at least somewhat understandable.
Ludious had a somewhat interesting story about how in the south it can be easy to get people on board with trans stuff by treating it as a medical issue; something they already understand and accept. Contrast that with homosexuality, which can't really be cast so. I think it's the same thing here, go too far and you're crazy. You have to get there by playing a bullshit game and basically hopping along a bunch of discrete points towards the end game.
That was me actually, not Luds.
Oh, sorry! He must have been complaining about the south and controlled substances at the same time or something.
I mean I get that people become super attached to models and labels and categories, but it's still weird to me. I fundamentally accept that models are distillations of reality, and labels and categories are ad-hoc mechanisms designed to cluster things such that we may make predictions based on other traits. They're useful, but fundamentally lose the fine focus of reality and thus will have things that are categorized where we wouldn't expect them, or our categories fail in some other way. But since they're just our self-imposed ideas over a very unusual and strange world, it makes sense that that would happen. We're just trying to impose things to order a chaotic world.
So my instinct is to say "yeah, this is pretty much just a tool and fails to account for plenty of things," while other people try frantically to save what amounts to figments of their imaginations.
We tend to have fucked up ideas of similarity. We tend to have fucked up ideas of what constitutes a "thing".
Pretty much. Most often we take a cluster of common correlates, assign them to once distinct category, then flip out when the correlates are either not correlated well in one case or are correlated together mostly, except for one that we assign special importance to.
Also broad biological classification is, thanks to genetic analysis of evolutionary lineages, becoming less arbitrary. "Anything from this set of ancestors is a mammal" is pretty good. I'd argue that the problem there isn't mammalia being a bad class, it's that what a scientist uses to classify a mammal rigorously is different from what a lay person does without thought.
This is why I think it would be very interested to have access to the possible world in which Plato and Aristotle never happened: Human beings without reified categories, who priviledge the particular above the abstract general categorization.
I don't know how people language in that possible world, or go to the store and buy ingredients for a cake, but I still suppose it's an awesome possible world.
Just an entire species of denoters whose primary lingustic designation is "this".
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
So long Freudian penis envy; hello non linguistic descriptors!
I think it's going to take a long time for what _J_ proposes to be something accepted or even discussed broadly in society. It's a sad state of affairs but at least somewhat understandable.
Ludious had a somewhat interesting story about how in the south it can be easy to get people on board with trans stuff by treating it as a medical issue; something they already understand and accept. Contrast that with homosexuality, which can't really be cast so. I think it's the same thing here, go too far and you're crazy. You have to get there by playing a bullshit game and basically hopping along a bunch of discrete points towards the end game.
That was me actually, not Luds.
Oh, sorry! He must have been complaining about the south and controlled substances at the same time or something.
Well we both live in the south and are snarky so there is room for confusion.
Not that I especially need credit for my observation, just I happened to see your post and there didn't seem to be a good reason to let it be misattributed to Luds.
Explaining emotion and state through some new non linguistic means would probably be the ideal; telepathy or some kind of mind-consciousness melding. A kind of intimacy that might even make our species unable to bring harm against itself again, or at least make it much harder to categorize the other.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
Sure.
Though, we don't need to get to that stage in order to solve most of the problems. We already have many of the words we need. It's just a matter of getting people to abandon the simple binary categories and utilize longer self-descriptions that apply to shorter spans of time.
English is a horrible language for the thing you want.
Explaining emotion and state through some new non linguistic means would probably be the ideal; telepathy or some kind of mind-consciousness melding. A kind of intimacy that might even make our species unable to bring harm against itself again, or at least make it much harder to categorize the other.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
Sure.
Though, we don't need to get to that stage in order to solve most of the problems. We already have many of the words we need. It's just a matter of getting people to abandon the simple binary categories and utilize longer self-descriptions that apply to shorter spans of time.
English is a horrible language for the thing you want.
Indeed.
But, you work with what you were colonized with, amrite?
Explaining emotion and state through some new non linguistic means would probably be the ideal; telepathy or some kind of mind-consciousness melding. A kind of intimacy that might even make our species unable to bring harm against itself again, or at least make it much harder to categorize the other.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
Sure.
Though, we don't need to get to that stage in order to solve most of the problems. We already have many of the words we need. It's just a matter of getting people to abandon the simple binary categories and utilize longer self-descriptions that apply to shorter spans of time.
English is a horrible language for the thing you want.
English is a horrible language for most things most people want.
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
I've been making up a language for my story that I use in private. It helps me remember things by allowing me to sing them more easily then I would in English.
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
Explaining emotion and state through some new non linguistic means would probably be the ideal; telepathy or some kind of mind-consciousness melding. A kind of intimacy that might even make our species unable to bring harm against itself again, or at least make it much harder to categorize the other.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
Sure.
Though, we don't need to get to that stage in order to solve most of the problems. We already have many of the words we need. It's just a matter of getting people to abandon the simple binary categories and utilize longer self-descriptions that apply to shorter spans of time.
English is a horrible language for the thing you want.
English is a horrible language for most things most people want.
Explaining emotion and state through some new non linguistic means would probably be the ideal; telepathy or some kind of mind-consciousness melding. A kind of intimacy that might even make our species unable to bring harm against itself again, or at least make it much harder to categorize the other.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
Sure.
Though, we don't need to get to that stage in order to solve most of the problems. We already have many of the words we need. It's just a matter of getting people to abandon the simple binary categories and utilize longer self-descriptions that apply to shorter spans of time.
English is a horrible language for the thing you want.
There aren't really man languages that don't kind of rely on conglomeration of different variables under one broad category.
I've been making up a language for my story that I use in private. It helps me remember things by allowing me to sing them more easily then I would in English.
Posts
The car has become sentient and is full of malice.
The backlighting is definitely why it was rejected from premium panels. The light bleed is not great and one corner is noticeably brighter on a black screen.
THAT SAID
It's a million times better than any other $350 monitor. Most cheap monitors have just as bad of light leakage and non-uniformity. This is almost comically better. It's literally a $1000 panel with a slightly funky backlight. I love it.
Edit: Here's as bad as it gets on a totally black screen.
It might require a new psychology, but yeah it would be interesting.
So long Freudian penis envy; hello non linguistic descriptors!
I think it's going to take a long time for what _J_ proposes to be something accepted or even discussed broadly in society. It's a sad state of affairs but at least somewhat understandable.
It's not just sexuality; it's everything.
Ludious had a somewhat interesting story about how in the south it can be easy to get people on board with trans stuff by treating it as a medical issue; something they already understand and accept. Contrast that with homosexuality, which can't really be cast so. I think it's the same thing here, go too far and you're crazy. You have to get there by playing a bullshit game and basically hopping along a bunch of discrete points towards the end game.
That was me actually, not Luds.
Sure.
Though, we don't need to get to that stage in order to solve most of the problems. We already have many of the words we need. It's just a matter of getting people to abandon the simple binary categories and utilize longer self-descriptions that apply to shorter spans of time.
and now it's gone ;o
It must be another Friday night [chat]
I am severely sober and mildly straight
What's good?
An abstract concept.
Vodka and anything with a pulse and hole?
Oh, sorry! He must have been complaining about the south and controlled substances at the same time or something.
Doesn't even need a pulse now, if it had one a short time ago.
I don't care what anyone says, you are delightful.
There are five mammals within touching distance of me.
:winky:
Well, I am one of the mammals, so :P
It is a good Friday night.
Now I want mac and cheese.
You jerk.
Well we both live in the south and are snarky so there is room for confusion.
Not that I especially need credit for my observation, just I happened to see your post and there didn't seem to be a good reason to let it be misattributed to Luds.
It is funny how wrong memory can be.
English is a horrible language for the thing you want.
Physician, heel thyself
Indeed.
But, you work with what you were colonized with, amrite?
English is a horrible language for most things most people want.
I blame it's mother.
There aren't really man languages that don't kind of rely on conglomeration of different variables under one broad category.
I mean even C has structs.
I want to learn the language this guy invented.
I'd also like to be that guy.