mil22

10 ms·

121.
by mil22 3y ago
Some, but not all [1]: "... the remaining 17% reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products... It is believed that the non-THC/CBD vapers who were diagnosed with EVALI were actually suffering from disparate vaping-associ
122.
by mil22 3y ago
Water is essential for human survival; vaping is not necessary for human survival or health but rather introduces potentially harmful substances into the body, including nicotine, which is addictive, and other chemicals that have adverse he
123.
by mil22 3y ago
That's crazy! I personally think both regular tobacco and vapes should be tightly regulated, with tobacco available only to people born before some fixed year (like New Zealand) and vapes restricted the same way or only to existing smo
124.
by mil22 3y ago
Totally agree, it definitely isn't safe, and it isn't safe for the person vaping or anyone exposed second-hand. However, the evidence so far does suggest the harm is somewhat less than regular tobacco smoke.
125.
by mil22 3y ago
Especially with the widespread availability of vapes, which are still pretty bad for you but substantially less so than cigarettes, there's no excuse these days. I am the same way, I will risk getting hit by cars sometimes just to avoi
126.
by mil22 3y ago
Totally agree with this. I can see the desire to show off, but I don't understand how anyone can believe this is good marketing strategy. Any initial excitement I get from reading such announcements will be immediately extinguished whe
127.
by mil22 3y ago
s/sensor/panel/
128.
by mil22 3y ago
I think the article merely superimposed manually distorted screenshots from the AVP onto a photo of the sensor, rather than taking a photo of the sensor while turned on, so it's not representative of the distortion, but yes, I agree, y
129.
by mil22 3y ago
I've been wearing lenses since the 90s. These days I wear 1-Day Acuvue Moist for Astigmatism for the most part, released in 2006, and they continue to be my overall favorite. I keep trying newer lens technologies as they come out, but
130.
by mil22 3y ago
At -2.5, you probably don't get much shrinkage or aberration with your glasses, so they work better for you. For me, at -4 plus strong astigmatism, wearing glasses makes everything look tiny, and circles look like ovals... contacts are
131.
by mil22 3y ago
That makes sense. Given that the smallest legible fonts are around 5 pixels tall, that's 3-4x less PPD than your monitor offers at 4 feet, so you'd need ~46-62 PPD eyesight to be able to read the text. 20/20 at 60 would be mo
132.
by mil22 3y ago
This study popped up: https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-co... In summary, with an 88" screen at a distance of 5 feet, some viewers rated 8K content (118 PPD) higher on average than equ
133.
by mil22 3y ago
At -6.75, the impact of the shrinkage caused by eyeglasses would very likely exceed any slight visual imperfections caused by contacts (glare, halos, instability, rotation misalignment for astigmatism, etc.) I'm at -4 and prefer contac
134.
by mil22 3y ago
That's my kind of monitor. :) It's not wasted either. Foveal cone angular density is actually around 12,000 cones/deg^2, or 110 PPD, so anything up to that is achievable with perfectly corrected vision. That's a lot high
135.
by mil22 3y ago
Matching the 60° FOV of a 27" monitor at close distance, it's equivalent to 1080p or less. It gets even worse at FOVs equivalent to more reasonable distances.
136.
by mil22 3y ago
It's not surprising. The AVP has a PPD of 34. A 14" MBP screen with a resolution of 3024x1964 already has a PPD of 66 at a close 14" viewing distance and it gets higher as you move further away [1]. Retina is considered 60+ a
137.
by mil22 3y ago
Note there was an error in my math here which I can no longer correct. My 27" 4K at a distance of 20" has a PPD of 63, which is also considered retina. Compare this to the Vision Pro PPD of ~34. To get true 4K res (3840x2160) at a
138.
by mil22 3y ago
I am very near-sighted... it feels good. :) [update: I remeasured in a more relaxed posture sitting back and it's closer to 20" in that scenario]
139.
by mil22 3y ago
I think it very much depends on the viewing distance. Using https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/ : * Your 22" screen at a distance of 32" has a horizontal FOV of 33°. Moving your eyes from the middle of one screen to
140.
by mil22 3y ago
Totally agree. I have tried multiple monitors so many times over the years but always come back to a single display, usually 24-27”. Turning your head is a hassle. I also find turning my eyes fatiguing if the angle of movement is too grea
141.
by mil22 3y ago
Yes, unless inflation-adjusted incomes increase each decade, as they did for much of the 20th century: in that scenario a child's peak earning years will tend to happen when incomes are higher than the peak earning years of the parents
142.
by mil22 3y ago
Small companies with better aligned incentives (equity incentives vs. bonus and promotion as the primary upside), indie work (and unrelatedly thereby also not giving away 80-90% of the value you create to the founders and VCs), or being a f
143.
by mil22 3y ago
Agreed. The employee is rather judged by something like their peer's perception of how competent the employee is, their knowledge of the work the employee did, and their own belief of how important that work was, all filtered through t
144.
by mil22 3y ago
Fair enough - as a user, that prompts me to ask myself, why am I using Hacker News for tech news when most of the content I see daily isn't actually news. I guess I will just be more aggressive in hiding posts that I didn't want t
145.
by mil22 3y ago
.
146.
by mil22 3y ago
I think that's kind of the point though - in a free market with sufficient competition, distribution channels would be forced to compete on the quality of their review processes and users would gravitate to the marketplaces that have t
147.
by mil22 3y ago
Having a meeting about compliance != vetting changes before announcing. For example: * Apple says "here's our proposed new framework." EU regulators say "We don't like it." Apple replies "Too bad, we'
148.
by mil22 3y ago
I don't know - I wasn't there. Were you?
149.
by mil22 3y ago
Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, p
150.
by mil22 3y ago
Meeting with regulators != vetting changes before announcing.

More ›