> All LCDs have an outer polarizing layer. The manufacturer decides whether that layer is coarsened to have a matte finish, or to leave it at that to get a glossy finish. Glossy displays don't have anything "extra" than matte displays do.

Wildly incorrect. You can't tell by simply touching the display that the glossy ones have a layer of glass (or plastic) on top, really?

> Also I don't think you understand that there are only few actual panel manufacturers in the world, so many displays from different manufacturers will indeed have the same panel.

I'm well aware of that. And are you aware of the fact that even the same laptop or monitor can source difference panels with "similar" specs that aren't the same? You claim to read Notebookcheck - they bring up that fact over and over.

> In the case of glossy, I can position my monitor to completely cut out the glaring lights.

Good luck with that when your lights are on the ceiling like they are in most cases - or when you are working outside/next to a window (which is very often the case with a laptop).

> With the matte even if I do that I still end up with a washed out image.

Except it's not washed out if you have a decent screen.

> If matte displays can't be touch sensitive

I literally said they can be. But they have to be resistive, not capacitive. Capacitive tech needs the glass or plastic layer to work. Read up on how it functions. "A capacitive touchscreen panel consists of an insulator, such as glass, coated with a transparent conductor, such as indium tin oxide (ITO)."

> Lenovo

... is an example of when a display actually has matte "coating" on top of the capacitive glass layer.

> Am I hallucinating that my screen protector on my phone right now is matte?

You said it yourself: screen protector. (And those truly make phone displays look like grainy trash.) Get back to me when you build a capacitive display without the glass layer, you will be rich overnight.

> ...so did the matte one.

Uh-huh - except matte screens do it to a much smaller extent and only on dark backgrounds. Glossy ones like on my MacBook do it regardless of background and lighting, and it's extremely tiring on the eyes.

> And yet pretty much no one is claiming for matte displays on Apple laptops, smartphones, tablets or OLED TVs

You're joking, right? People have been demanding a matte MacBook for ages. When you do actual work on it for a full day instead of being a pretentious "graphics designer" playing with fonts for half an hour, the reflections become extremely exhausting. The reason Apple isn't doing it is because matte screens look "cheap" - glass looks expensive and fancy.

> is way more desirable

Yet almost all desktop monitors, even the very expensive ones, are matte. I wonder why...

> And yet there are no laptops on notebookcheck where the matte display is anywhere near as sharp as their glossy counterparts (as seen in their subpixel view)

As an avid Notebookcheck reader myself: citation needed.

> Are they all using worse panels than the ones using glossy?

That's not as far from the truth as you think. The aforementioned MacBooks have been consistently offering some of the best displays on the market in terms of resolution, colour accuracy, and colorspace coverage - and all of them have glass. Those specs aren't the consequence of having glass, but they do skew the statistics in glossy screens' favour.

> So first of all, there no such thing as a matte """coating""". That's just the natural state of any panel. Calling it a "coating" the way he and you do is incorrect. Glossy panels are the ones that have something extra - the glass layer.

Based on what? Do you know how LCDs are manufactured?

All LCDs have an outer polarizing layer. The manufacturer decides whether that layer is coarsened to have a matte finish, or to leave it at that to get a glossy finish. Glossy displays don't have anything "extra" than matte displays do. There are exceptions at the ultra low end that do what you say, and the result is clearly visible. You don't get the vibrancy or sharpness of glossy displays nor do you get the diffusion of matte displays.

> Second, do the monitors in the video have exactly the same panel? He claims so, but I've seen plenty of big reviewers not understand the difference and claim that something is "the same/practically the same panel" when it wasn't even from the same manufacturer. Are brightness and contrast settings configured to match?

He runs his monitors full tilt for his tests, and yes, they're from the same manufacturer. Also I don't think you understand that there are only few actual panel manufacturers in the world, so many displays from different manufacturers will indeed have the same panel. The Eve shown in the video uses LG panels.

> Third, using ambient lighting as an argument in favour of glossy displays... really doesn't make sense. You can literally see it in the video how the monitor is reflecting him. Who wants that?

...so did the matte one. Did you even watch the full video?

In the case of glossy, I can position my monitor to completely cut out the glaring lights. With the matte even if I do that I still end up with a washed out image.

> The guy is literally talking out of his ass, claiming that the reason phones and tables have glossy screens is because "they provide the best visual experience". Wrong: it's because you need the glass layer for a capacitive touchscreen (back in the day, Windows Mobile PDAs had matte touchscreens because they were resistive - I miss that greatly, they also worked with anything that exerted pressure, meaning you could use them in gloves etc). Why should I listen to anything he says?

If anything you proved you're the one talking out your ass. If matte displays can't be touch sensitive, is Lenovo scamming customers by offering matte touch display options on their Thinkpads? Am I hallucinating that my screen protector on my phone right now is matte?

> He outright doesn't understand that reflections are not wanted by the overwhelming majority of users

And yet pretty much no one is claiming for matte displays on Apple laptops, smartphones, tablets or OLED TVs, despite it being such "an overwhelmingly negative point". Funny how that works, almost as if having a vibrant and sharper display where reflections can be mitigated pretty much completely through proper placement is way more desirable than washed out displays that are meant for office use where placement cannot be controlled.

> uses what's clearly a worse panel - my previous monitor (MSI Optix MAG241CR) also had that kind of "diffusion" that made text more difficult to read, but neither my current monitor (AOC Q24G2) nor my older one (Asus VX248H) do. All of them are matte.

And yet there are no laptops on notebookcheck where the matte display is anywhere near as sharp as their glossy counterparts (as seen in their subpixel view). Are they all using worse panels than the ones using glossy?

So first of all, there no such thing as a matte """coating""". That's just the natural state of any panel. Calling it a "coating" the way he and you do is incorrect. Glossy panels are the ones that have something extra - the glass layer.

Second, do the monitors in the video have exactly the same panel? He claims so, but I've seen plenty of big reviewers not understand the difference and claim that something is "the same/practically the same panel" when it wasn't even from the same manufacturer. Are brightness and contrast settings configured to match?

Third, using ambient lighting as an argument in favour of glossy displays... really doesn't make sense. You can literally see it in the video how the monitor is reflecting him. Who wants that? I have a MacBook (which of course has a glossy display) for work and a 24" matte desktop monitor - guess which one is a pain even at max brightness? Not the matte monitor.

The guy is literally talking out of his ass, claiming that the reason phones and tables have glossy screens is because "they provide the best visual experience". Wrong: it's because you need the glass layer for a capacitive touchscreen (back in the day, Windows Mobile PDAs had matte touchscreens because they were resistive - I miss that greatly, they also worked with anything that exerted pressure, meaning you could use them in gloves etc). Why should I listen to anything he says? He outright doesn't understand that reflections are not wanted by the overwhelming majority of users, and uses what's clearly a worse panel - my previous monitor (MSI Optix MAG241CR) also had that kind of "diffusion" that made text more difficult to read, but neither my current monitor (AOC Q24G2) nor my older one (Asus VX248H) do. All of them are matte.

The part where you claimed the vibrancy of the panel has nothing to do with the coating. As shown in the video, any time there is any ambient lighting the matte version will look more washed out and dull compared to the same panel with a glossy coating.

And this isn't including the loss of sharpness matte coating causes.

What part of what I said is only true if there is no light at all? You have to be more specific.

Nearly every fpv quad looks like that through the goggles. Vast majority use analog for weight and latency

I actually worked on a device like this. Suffice to say the hospital machines are extremely bare bones tech that hasn’t been updated since it’s creation.

These new ones are extremely advanced. I signed an NDA so I have to be a bit vague.

My attitude is that if people want to live their lives in a virtual world controlled by mark Zuckerberg, then fine, it’s their life. I won’t do it

Sure but you said "they haven’t been complicit in genocides." Which they have, just like most people doing business in China. I'm not saying Apple is worse then other businesses just that I wouldn't defend them as morally superior.

[deleted]

>unless it happens repeatedly to the same person

This is what made my team and I take it seriously. I was also able to export the date to my GP easily. I was in the cardiologist's office the next day.

Of course I was allergic to the Zio lol. Next step is implanting a monitoring device. Really interesting and fascinating.

I made an appointment with my GP because I kept getting alerts. I wasn't dead yet, so I could wait a week, you know?

They had me at a cardiologist the next day. I apparently have some undiagnosed genetic heart condition. I had other symptoms as well, but the watch was annoying so I finally went in.

[deleted]

Okay, okay. I admitted I was wrong when I said that they misused the word. What more do you want?

What I should have said is that I was confused and worried when I read the title of the article. Then I read the article and realized what they were referring to was a single lead reading, similar to Apple Watch.

I Don’t know what equipment medics have where you are, but I’ve only had them bring in 12 leads. How do you diagnose a STEMI prehospital with a 3 lead? Nobody in any hospital I’ve ever worked at or in any class in medical school has ever referred to anything other than a 12 lead as an ekg. A rhythm strip is technically an ekg, but nobody calls it that. That was the source of my initial confusion.

Portable/wearable EKGs are truly lifesaving devices..

Yeah, I use mine with the mental expectation that it’s effectively the power equivalent of a portable PS4, and it’s phenomenal for that.

If you just want octoprint, just look in someone's junk drawer for an old android phone and install octo4a.

Unfortunately there isn't a simelar project that would make running Klipper as easy as this. You probably can do it, but it would require a lot more skill and knowledge.

Honestly, it's more like three+ generations ahead of the switch.

People forget that Breath of the Wild was developed first and foremost for the Wii U, which was roughly as powerful as an Xbox 360.

Literally just get a USB cable that is designed to interface with the printer. Whatever the printer uses to interface with a raspberry pi - just plug it into your phone and there you go. I don't know what you use to connect your raspberry to your printer. Is it USB? Then connect that to your phone the same way. Is it that one weird set of pins (GPIO I think?) - then get a GPIO to USB connector.

The burden of proof isn't on me; this isn't an official Lincoln Douglass debate or cross examine debate. It's just a conversation. I hacked my PS3 with a TI89 a while back. Because the TI89 provided some code that emulated a factory reset dongle's output.

The PS3 didn't care what was providing the code. It just wanted to receive the code. I could have done that with a PC. A phone. A raspberry pi. A custom made dongle. Maybe even an analog to digital signal piano if the PS3 didn't time out on my inputs.

Most don't so ...

Or think like just because they have a general idea if how things work, they know the nitty gritty details. Actually we all do that from time to time, but I have coded j2me on mobile phones for a couple of years, I have also used and modified C code for my 3D printer (I'm a senior C/C++ dev) so I think I'm not completely off the track. But I mean I still wait for you to show me how you'd hook a smartphone up to control a 3Dprinter. I mean it surely is possible, maybe easy, maybe very costly, but the burden of proof lies on you, not me, IMO.

Nice

Plenty of ekgs are not 12-leads. Paramedics will bring in 3-leads and will still be called an ekg by providers

VR always feels like you are face to face. That's the entire effect it provides.

It's just that you are face to face with abstractions - low-resolution, low-fidelity avatars that are kind of janky.

At least with today's tech.

If it felt like you were in a videogame lobby, what would the point of VR be? I could get that feeling just by playing Call of Duty on console.

VR doesn’t feel like your talking face to face either though, it feels like you are in a video game lobby.

I’d argue that’s more salesmanship than being cutting edge. I’m typing this on an iPhone.