3 ms·

I get the joke, but color has been present in books (manuscripts, before the invention of the printing press, even) basically since their inception, many centur

by Funes- 2y ago

I get the joke, but color has been present in books (manuscripts, before the invention of the printing press, even) basically since their inception, many centuries ago, so just adding color wouldn't make these devices more similar to screens as much as it would make them more akin to... well, books. Just look at these marvels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript.

mirekrusin 2y ago
Color was present in cave paintings.
- Funes- 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Funes- 2y ago
  Where exactly in parent's post are cave paintings mentioned, instead of explicitly just books and screens, whose specific relationship is what the tongue-in-cheek comment is about? Your post makes no sense, other than trying to be a "gotcha!" one and failing at it.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
Here's a book a little closer in time to the invention of books: https://cdn.britannica.com/25/83825-050-F8826674/Anubis-Egyptian-Book-of-the-Dead-dead-c-1275-bce.jpg https://cdn.britannica.com/25/83825-050-F8826674/Anubis-Egyp...
- TZubiri 2y ago
  100% not a book as it's not movable. Might be a scroll or a codex, but it might even be on a wall.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    It's a bunch of sheets of paper, or more likely part of a scroll. You can see the grain clearly in the image. > it's not movable I don't know what to say here. This is obviously false. Why did you say this? What do you think is the difference between a "book" and a "codex"? Why do you think ancient texts are divided into "books"?
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      Oh my bad, definitely movable then, thought it was a wall. According to wikipedia: "The codex (pl.: codices /ˈkoʊdɪsiːz/)[1] was the historical ancestor format of the modern book. Technically the vast majority of modern books use the codex format of a stack of pages bound at one edge, along the side of the text. But the term "codex" is now reserved for older manuscript books, which mostly used sheets of vellum, parchment, or papyrus, rather than paper.[2] " I would say a codex is a book yes, you are right there. The defining characteristic for me is the binding method, the flippable pages and the bookiness factor of the book. That said, unbound scrolls that are scrolled into scrolls of scroll are definitely scrolls and not books. So 2 to 1, gg.
chipdart 2y ago
> I get the joke, but color has been present in books (...) That's like saying confortable cars have been present since their inception, and then present as a example a royal coach. True, you technically had colors in books. Just like you had books with hardbacks with gold inlays. The fact is that the bulk of the books being published were not color books because that costs a premium to make and moreso to buy. Hence the default stabilized in softcover books with B/W print on flimsy paper. With e-readers you do not get higher production costs, and you can just download your books and benefit from that. Some ebooks even ship with high resolution images where you can zoom in all you want or need.

by Funes- 2y ago

mirekrusin 2y ago

Color was present in cave paintings.

Funes- 2y ago
[flagged]
Funes- 2y ago
Where exactly in parent's post are cave paintings mentioned, instead of explicitly just books and screens, whose specific relationship is what the tongue-in-cheek comment is about? Your post makes no sense, other than trying to be a "gotcha!" one and failing at it.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

Here's a book a little closer in time to the invention of books: https://cdn.britannica.com/25/83825-050-F8826674/Anubis-Egyptian-Book-of-the-Dead-dead-c-1275-bce.jpg https://cdn.britannica.com/25/83825-050-F8826674/Anubis-Egyp...

TZubiri 2y ago
100% not a book as it's not movable. Might be a scroll or a codex, but it might even be on a wall.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  It's a bunch of sheets of paper, or more likely part of a scroll. You can see the grain clearly in the image. > it's not movable I don't know what to say here. This is obviously false. Why did you say this? What do you think is the difference between a "book" and a "codex"? Why do you think ancient texts are divided into "books"?
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    Oh my bad, definitely movable then, thought it was a wall. According to wikipedia: "The codex (pl.: codices /ˈkoʊdɪsiːz/)[1] was the historical ancestor format of the modern book. Technically the vast majority of modern books use the codex format of a stack of pages bound at one edge, along the side of the text. But the term "codex" is now reserved for older manuscript books, which mostly used sheets of vellum, parchment, or papyrus, rather than paper.[2] " I would say a codex is a book yes, you are right there. The defining characteristic for me is the binding method, the flippable pages and the bookiness factor of the book. That said, unbound scrolls that are scrolled into scrolls of scroll are definitely scrolls and not books. So 2 to 1, gg.

chipdart 2y ago

> I get the joke, but color has been present in books (...) That's like saying confortable cars have been present since their inception, and then present as a example a royal coach. True, you technically had colors in books. Just like you had books with hardbacks with gold inlays. The fact is that the bulk of the books being published were not color books because that costs a premium to make and moreso to buy. Hence the default stabilized in softcover books with B/W print on flimsy paper. With e-readers you do not get higher production costs, and you can just download your books and benefit from that. Some ebooks even ship with high resolution images where you can zoom in all you want or need.