You know who has great information density? Pornhub. If you open Pornhub on a 4K screen, you will absolutely see none of the thumbnails. I think YouTube is overdoing it, but it is really a thing of: people are either using really small screens or 1080p. 4K is still not around much.
There's an old adage that if you follow the tech that porn adopts, you'll generally be ahead the average consumer curve.
I think there's another version that if porn adopts a tech that means that the tech will work. Like, a lot of VR adoption early on was porn. By a lot, I mean most.
Has VR caught on? Genuine question; I am not a gamer, but I see no real adoption elsewhere. The occasional movie is offered in 3D, but it's generally post-rendered, which makes the effect crappier - and it's occasional, not the majority.
It's really hard to tell because with the currently high price for headsets it leans really hard into being a solitary activity.
Don't get me wrong you can play games like beat saber ala singstar or rockband taking turns but it's an order of magnitude more if you want the second "controller" and you need much more space. Let alone the equivalent of buying an extra TV for everyone you want to watch a movie with.
When you add on the ergonomics of the device which even with good setups mean you need "heavy" cabling or have limited runtime due to battery it's hard to recommend it to even mates who use their whole weekend on gaming.
That being said I have a Pimax 8k I bought second hand and VR is really an awesome experience when you're in it so it's easy to see why the excitement is still there. I'll also mention some of the extreme sports camera stuff is often 360 if not 3d which benefits from a headset.
I've had a quest 2 since a bit before the meta rebrand. I like it, but I mostly use it for games. I used to be really into VRchat, which I wouldn't really consider a game. I stopped using it when it became increasingly clear the quest 2 just isn't powerful enough for it
Not sure what this comment is getting at. Those may be the collection of sites owned by a single company, but there are still -oceans- of porn of every conceivable niche, on hundreds of thousands of sites, some still bigger than those. Whereas there’s pretty much a single, monopolized provider for mainstream video: youtube. And a porn conglomerate is the problem? GP is still correct, there’s still real competition in the space, unlike youtube.
Yes. 1080p screen density is still so popular. Looking around new laptops it's still the bulk in Windows land, including OLED and ultra high refresh rate monitors. Same for TVs.
Even on macs many are using scaling factors that render close to 1080p.
The issue really would be why YouTube can't bother managing more layouts. It still blows my mind there's only one single YouTube experience per platform, when their viewership basically span the world's population.
On laptops more than 1080p (or an aspect ratio equivalent) is just a waste. Less battery life and everything is too small to see anyway so you have to scale.
Higher DPI is still pretty nice and noticeable for people who spend their life reading/peeking (including comic books, art etc.).
I feel more people would benefit from better screens even for their reports or excel work, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on most standard companies paying for it if there's no OSHA style law mandating it.
> battery life
I think we've reach a decent place, even the Surface Pro line with around 3K displays has double digit battery life for office type tasks.
This is my general opinion with regards to bureaucracy in Germany. All the data is most likely already there and all the technical challenges have been solved in the meantime. Why do I have to do the runaround from office to office, when they are physically connected by a piece if wire (aka the internet).
There is a reason why we have so much bureaucracy in Germany (1. because we like it) and second because it is supposed to provide trust, trust that every company I deal with is legit, trust that the system knows who is participating. Without trust nobody would make business or business would be very hard, because you would have to price in the risk of not having trust.
There is something to be said for trust here. I like that I can go straight to the imprint ("Impressum") to know with whom I'm dealing with online, where the company is located and who the CEO is. This is not always easy to decipher from the "Terms" pages companies in the US and elsewhere provide.
The downside for founders is that you have to divulge your address, unless you take additional steps to give yourself a mailbox address, but this can also be illegal if you're not careful. You can also rent an office of course, but for indie devs and freelancers, this is usually not financially viable.
It's crazy that there are still people who don't get this. "It's cold here, so there's no such thing as global warming." They forget that the other hemisphere is on fire.
Who claims that climate science is flawed? The deniers? All science has degrees of uncertainty, look at physics, biology, medicine. But even so, they provide robust results, unlike creationism, flat-earthers, etc.
I think a better way would be to keep the foundation and spin off a company that manufactures all of that. Sell 49% of that company in an IPO and keep the majority stake in the foundation. This way they can raise money for expansion while keeping the mission in line.
This also signals very clear to investors what this enterprise is about.
This is already the setup, the foundation owns the trading company and it is the trading company going to IPO.
From a quick scan it's not clear to me what share of ownership of RPi ltd the foundation would retain post IPO other than the foundation will be selling at least some of its stake:
> The Offer would be comprised of new Shares to be issued by the Company and existing shares to be sold by certain existing shareholders, including the Raspberry Pi Foundation, Raspberry Pi's existing majority shareholder.
Yes, but as shareholders they must still act according to their 'purpose', which is a term in UK law that a charity can choose when it is set up as part of its charter, and then every action must be in accordance with.
I would like to know how much the Pi Foundation would still own—could be an interesting dynamic there. And good for them to be able to use some of that profit for good (they do a lot of neat things for education / STEM).
Hopefully the foundation still controls the majority of votes regardless of the % ownership stake. They do too much good in the world to go full-blown public corpo
Yes, it's "line goes up", but more in the P/E ratio sense, where the price of the stock doesn't reflect the true value of the company, however outside of tech you can usually reason that there's either dividends being paid, or the stock has a base value because if a company performs, and the stock price is low enough, it's worth for another entity to buy it out and take control of it. This gives a stock some real value, and company performance has real impact on the price of the stock. In the case of tech comapnies, it's often no dividends, and the owner has 51%, so the stock gives no share of the profits, and no voting power.
Traditional answer is that there is future potential that they would issue more stock (to sacrifice their 51% stake) or at some point start to issue dividends.
Line goes up is the same as dividends. If you genuinely don't know, you can easily find the reason why it's economically the same, while being fiscally more efficient to not emit dividends by doing a quick googling.
You completely missed the point of the question. They're not the same. Dividends give you a share of the company's profits, thus pay based on company performance. "line goes up" mechanics assume somebody will buy your stock because there's a shared illusion that stocks have value, even though they, in case of tech stock, don't pay dividends, and give no voting rights.
It is you who missed the point. Google the fiscal difference between dividends or no dividends and you'll understand. There's nothing preventing you from selling exactly as much % shares each quarter as you want to create your own dividend, specially with fractional shares. These days the difference is merely fiscal and people that say "if there's no dividends its all fake" seem to want to portray it as bad when for most people it's way better to let it compound and only sell and trigger taxable events when they want to. I don't see how the board of some company deciding when I have taxable events is an advantage if the company removes the same value of shares from circulation by doing a buyback.
Dividends are just adding financial inefficiency and removing choice from the shareholder.
Since you're still struggling, I'll try to be as clear as possible. Why does a stock have value if it doesn't give you a share of the company profits, or voting rights?
You're adding voting rights into the discussion when they are separate from dividends is something I don't understand. You can have voting rights and no dividend.
Regarding the share of the profits I already explained. You have your share of the profits in form of liquid stock that you can decide to sell. It's the same thing.
The discussion from the beginning was about the value of stocks. Traditionally it's a share of profits in the form of dividends and voting rights. If the stock doesn't pay dividends and the founder has 51%, then you get none of that, so why does the stock have any value. That's the discussion here. Try to read and understand the question before engaging next time.
You're talking about old things. Its not common anymore for voting rights and dividends to be as intertwined as you say, and you keep ignoring all I said about fiscal differences while telling me to read. Anyway have a nice day was still good to type down our thoughts.
I think you can rephrase the question as “where is the value in owning stock? If it’s only that you hope to sell it to someone else at a higher price later, isn’t it just a pyramid scheme? At least with dividends and voting rights there are clear and tangible benefits apart from speculation”.
And the answer could then be that you’re investing in a company which allows them to grow, and your money with them. Or that you store your money in a medium that hopefully at least keeps up with inflation (especially if you’ve spread the risk). Or just that you’ve taken a gamble and hope that other people will think the stock is worth more at some later point than it was when you bought it.
It's as much a pyramid scheme as believing the government will buy back your government bonds or backup your dollar. End of the day you always need to believe any asset you own has its valued derived on other people wanting to buy it off of you, if you call that a pyramid scheme then the whole financial system is a pyramid scheme. You probably don't value your car or your laptop or your house as zero just because nobody might want to buy them off of you, while technically true.
You know other people can look at a balance sheet of a company and also judge it's value based on how much it produces and on the expectation of future buybacks that will increase your share's worth. I wouldn't call the absense of dividends the maker of a pyramid scheme.
When you buy bonds, the government guarantees it'll buy the bonds back. It's a loan with interest. When you buy a stock that doesn't have any inherent value, due to a lack of tangible benefits of ownership, then you're gambling that somebody in the future will buy it from you for no real reason other than a shared illusion that the piece of paper has a worth, and is somehow tied to comapny performance.
Again, it's the lack of dividends and the lack of any other tangible benefits of owning the stock like voting rights. I feel like you're so far down the "line goes up" rabbit hole of stock trading, that you can't even think clearly about what you're actually buying, and why would anybody buy it from you in the future.
Whoever reads this without knowledge will think voting rights have something to do with dividends and you keep making this wrong assertion.
So as a warning to whoever reads this, do a search for "dual class stocks", and see how many companies sell stock without voting rights as % of any index. Then see how many don't issue dividends. You'll see it's a completely separate subject.
I don’t think you’re fully getting what they’re trying to say. They’re not asserting that dividends and voting rights are somehow inextricably linked or that you can’t have one without the other.
They’re simply listing the two things they think actually provide any real value when owning stock, as opposed to ”line goes up”.
In other words, they’re asking why owning stock has actual value. They dismiss ”line goes up”, which only leaves dividends and voting rights. By that logic, if you aren’t paid any dividends and you don’t have voting rights, what is the point of owning the stock, except to gamble? That is what they want to know.
And then I think that what you have been saying, correctly in my opinion, is that ”line goes up” actually does have real value. But no one is trying to claim that dividends and voting rights aren’t separate things.
I agree with you, as indicated by the second paragraph I wrote. I was just paraphrasing and tried to answer what I believe the other person was asking (I’m happy to be corrected if it was not).
Thanks for taking the time to understand my question. It goes without saying that without any tangible value, you're just gambling that somebody will buy a stock from you in the future. I'm wondering if there's some other mechanism at work here that gives these tech stocks value, other than, as you said, basically a pyramid scheme mechanism of buying stocks because somebody with the same "line goes up" mentality will do that in the future and buy us out.
> I think a better way would be to keep the foundation and spin off a company that manufactures all of that. Sell 49% of that company in an IPO and keep the majority stake in the foundation. This way they can raise money for expansion while keeping the mission in line.
Lol. Like you are going to pay 1500$ per month for marginal infrastructure cost? Suburbans are pretty expensive as well as rural communities, I don't need a consultancy to see that.
Look at some of the poorer places in America and you can see what you can get with no property tax or other contributions.
Yes but they still degrade relatively quickly when managed correctly so a burst of pollutants whenever it rains is better than a constant low level exposure from people washing their cars all the time.
Regions where it rains frequently like the PNW have rain gardens, vegetated swales, catch basins/filters, and other mitigation strategies all over the place whereas e.g. California might just have them throughout the drainage system like at the end of the LA river.
DRF does what it says on the tin. It is REST by the definition of it. Not a HTTP JSON API but strict REST. A object with CRUD as an API. Everything else is outside of scope and mostly reall hard to do.
That's why I rarely use DRF and either use function based views directly or use another library.
I don't think http://django-vanilla-views.org/ ever really caught on, but it does show that ccbv.co.uk shouldn't have to exist. The DRF class tree is small enough to keep in your head once you've spent some time with it.
I honestly only managed to get my mind wrapped around how class based views worked by studying Django Vanilla Views and Django Rest Framework… while I eventually learned and understood why the built in class based views are the way they are… in no small part thanks to https://ccbv.co.uk/ … but it was definitely more instructive to have a more simple class and mixin hierarchy that I could use, put breakpoints on, and fully get my head at… in order to get my mind around the very concept of class based views … after that it all made a lot more sense.
