Sony: 2K smartphone screens are not worth the battery compromise – News – Trusted Reviews

Sony: 2K smartphone screens are not worth the battery compromise – News – Trusted Reviews.

I’m with Sony on this.  There’s really no need- few people have eyes good enough to notice the improved resolution.  And there is not much content for resolutions that high, so you just display the same old stuff only with more pixels.

I just don’t see a good argument at present for phones going past 1080.  Maybe when we have more 2k content available, but for now, just stay at 1080.  It’s plenty for any mass market user.  Optimize things like refresh rate, color accuracy, contrast, and so on.  There’s a lot more room to make noticeable improvements on a screen this size than there is with higher resolutions.

That being said, companies should research and optimize the tech to go into the 2k range on a phone- the content is likely to come eventually(and being able to just display it at the resolution it is recorded at will be helpful for image quality and performance), and there are probably specialized use cases where it’s useful now.  But putting it into a mass market phone is just silly.

No, this study does not say that.

Unless You Have Celiac Disease, Gluten Sensitivity is in Your Head — NOVA Next | PBS.

The headline is pretty much total crap.

While the research does suggest that non-celiac gluten sensitivity doesn’t exist, it is not at all enough to say it’s all in your head.  The article does mention a hypothesis about FODMAPs being the actual cause, further research is needed to look into that.

Also, some replication of these results is called for.  This study may well simply be wrong.  It looks to be reasonably well done, so that seems unlikely, but until we see some replication, we really can’t rule it out.

And while the study participants may well not have a physical reaction to gluten, the study is small enough that it could plausibly miss rare conditions, other than celiac, that cause gluten sensitivity.  Non-celiac gluten sensitivity may exist, but be much more rare than popularly believed.  Further studies might be able to help here.

There’s just not enough in the study to remotely justify the headline used.  The study doesn’t say that.  The study says it’s something other than gluten.  IT does not say it’s all in peoples heads.

PBS, please do better next time or I might feel forced to join with Republicans in calling for your funding to be cut.  Not that I hate public broadcasting, but if we’re going to have it, I don’t want this sort of bullshit spreading paid for with my tax dollars.

Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution -Thoughts on further reading

Reading Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution by Shiri Eisner. I’m still early in the book, and trying to withhold final judgement, but there have been a few points where I’m thinking “Fuck you, I’m not a weapon in your silly revolution”. Some of this may be more writing style than a criticism on the merits of her arguments, hence, the attempt to withhold final judgement until she’s had the whole book to make her case.

A more practical criticism is I’m not sure existing power structures are so far beyond hope that the solution is to get rid of them. Some, at least, I believe can be reformed while being left largely intact. Some need to go, yes, but the nuke it from orbit solution Eisner seems to advocate- I don’t think we’re at that point. Not yet at least. I haven’t seen any suggestion that she’s advocating violent revolution, which is good.

The criticism of some assimilationist trends in LGBT culture I don’t like. Should LGBT people be expected to fully assimilate into heterosexual society? Of course not. But while she doesn’t outright say so, some of her criticisms of this sound like an accusation that such LGBT people who do wish to take a more assimilationist stance are effectively traitors. Again, as with my first paragraph, some of this might be writing style or not having seen her full arguments being so early in the book, but I’m not too happy with how she’s been dismissing the desires of such people.

Fan theory- Modern Family is a Married With Children sequel

This is my own speculation, it’s not based on any statements from the creative team or actors or anything.  But I noticed a few things, and the presence of Ed O’Neill playing the family patriarch on both shows helped.

The cast is the big giveaway.  In Married With Children, we’ve got a family consisting of Al and Peg Bundy, and their children Bud and Kelly.  The marriage is rocky, they don’t get along well.  Al constantly dreams of finding a hot wife to replace Peg.  It’s worth noting, though, that when the shit hits the fan, Al is loyal to his family.  Hmm… Crazy ex wife, hot and nice current wife, loyal to his family, and played football in High School?  Sounds like Modern Family’s Jay Pritchett.  Seems you can do well for yourself once you don’t have a crazy person sucking up most of your income.

The kids?  Bud Bundy was bad with women, but constantly seeming to work himself into a parody of hypermasculinity.  While far from universal, or necessarily even common, some people do this to hide being gay.  Bud, if he was such a gay man, once he learned to accept himself could have turned out much like Mitchell Pritchett of Modern Family.

Kelly was a dumb, promiscuous blonde.  On Modern Family, we’ve got Claire Dunphy(neé Pritchett), who is blonde and was implied to have gotten around a bit during high school in an episode where she met up with an old friend.  While Claire shows much greater mental capabilities than Kelly typically did, several episodes of Married With Children implied that Kelly was, fundamentally, brilliant.  She never used or developed her intellect, but it was there.  With the right motivation, she could easily become as intelligent as Claire.

Fanfic writers, I expect the thrilling tale of the Bundys busting up a meth ring and going into witness protection.

I wish I had an internet connection worth a damn.  I’d have supported this with direct episode references, embedded YouTube videos of key scenes, and so on.  IF you want to help buy me better internet(or beer if I don’t pull in enough for internet which requires moving out), there is that little donate button on the bottom right.

On The Ethics of Vampire Slaying in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

On The Ethics of Vampire Slaying in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Interesting viewpoint here.  Buffy/Angel spoilers, if you happen to be concerned.


The clearest way to resolve this would be, as Greta suggests, some fundamental limitation to the re-ensoulment magic.

In the case of Spike, this seems fairly obvious.  He had to endure a painful ritual to regain his soul back.  He, without a soul, had to make a free choice to attempt to earn it back.  I really don’t see a great many vampires even considering this, and I got the feeling that the ritual would not have worked if Spikes motivation wasn’t pure- if he was doing it as a means to some evil end, he probably would have failed.  Possibly even met his final death.

The Angel situation might be repeatable, in theory.  If it wasn’t done, I’d assume there’s a reason with how the magic works.  Difficult to replicate material components, the spell needing to be crafted to a specific vampire, something would have had to get in the way.  But it might have been interesting to see a subplot where they tried to develop a more generally applicable, more easily repeated version.  They wouldn’t need to succeed, or even focus heavily on it, but once in a while, mention it.  Maybe when Willow had showed up on Angel, she could have said something like “We haven’t finished, but we’ve made progress- I can do this without <random material component they needed the first time>”.  Just to recognize that the issue is there.


Just ran across a new initialism. “GSM”. Not the cell phone network type- “Gender and Sexual Minorities”. Roughly equivalent to LGBT, it seems.

I think I like it more. While less specific, it also seems to be more inclusive. I’ve seen extensions of “LGBT” that attempt to improve inclusivity, but these quickly spiral out of control- an initialism that needs to be spelled out every time it’s used has little to no linguistic utility. Inclusive, maybe, but some of the ones I’ve seen get into “this hurts rather than helps communication” territory.

GSM, though, if you are trying to refer to the entire “not cisgender straight” world, is general enough to acutally include everyone without breaking language by being far too long. And it can even include people who are cisgender and straight, but do not perfectly conform to expected gender roles.

To be fair, this broadness, while useful as an umbrella term, might compromise its utility in specific discussions.  But- those sorts of discussions shouldn’t be using an umbrella term anyways.

Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution by Shiri Eisner- Intial review through Chapter 1

Picked this one up on Amazon for all of 99 cents.  By Shiri Eisner

Started reading it- It’s interesting.  It opens with an explanation of the authors view of radical politics- taking things down to the root of the problem and attacking it there, with little to no regard for existing power structures- viewing them as the problem.  I’m not sure I agree with the need to tear down the existing structures so completely, though I do think it was quite good to lay out the basis of where the author is coming from.  This is a strongly political book, and the call for revolution is not simply a clever title or euphemism.

There was a long list of what Eisner’s preexisting biases and privileges are, which is good as well.  Even if the book wasn’t explicitly political, sexual orientation is a politically charged topic in much of the world.  Pre-existing biases on the part of the writer can be relevant, so it’s good this was discussed.  I do think there were issues with the explanation of privilegs- she gave a terribly long list of all the privileges she has that she could think of at the time.  But- there was little explanation of what privilege is.  To be fair, a 101 level discussion of privilege every time it comes up isn’t necessarily required, but for a book random people might pick up without much background, at least a pointer to where the reader could get more information would have been helpful.

It goes on to a discussion of the history of bisexuality as a concept.  Some interesting background, with a few interesting insights where they might have been on to something useful.

The next major part of the first chapter explains what bisexuality is.  The standard “attracted to men and women” is quickly discarded- two more useful definitions are proposed.

The first- I don’t like.  “Attracted to more than one gender”.  This definition, while inclusive, is overbroad to the point of uselessness.  It says very little about the people it is applied to- and if a label doesn’t, in some way, help you understand the thing it is applied to- what is the point?

The second I like quite a bit.  “Attraction to genders similar to ones own, and different from ones own”.  I like this one.  It’s inclusive of non-binary gender identities, it’s close enough to the common meaning that there’s little risk of misunderstanding, and it tells you something about the people it is applied to.  Eisner also points out that it encourages more questions about gender, what is similar, what is different.  While less inclusive than the first, it carries information.  And even if I bought Eisner’s thesis that the entire existing system needs to be torn down, to do that, you need to be able to interface with people in the system.  The greater backwards compatibility of this definition can be quite useful.

There’s some coverage of bisexuality myths.  Some interesting ideas.  I’m still thinking about Eisner’s commentary regarding the “standard” bisexual response, vs the more radical response she seems to advocate.

I’ll review further sections as I read further.  Overall, I agree with some, disagree with some, and am undecided on some.  I’m keeping an open mind though- I’m ready to be convinced otherwise on all points.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 98 other followers