Yes, because they aren't forever stressed outand experiencing a lifetime of chronic inflammation throughout their whole bodies.

> The tech – which has extraordinary light scattering properties – would replace the liquid crystal layer and would not require the polarisers, which are responsible for half of wasted light intensity and energy use in displays.

I could see this tech being used in tandem with pre-foviated rendering in VR contexts to deliver extreme detail with efficient GPU usage.

People tend to ignore those with chronic illnesses.

I can hear apple execs nipples popping

What's "100X thinner?" The switching layer or the whole panel?

Because we have OLED display panels so thin they can be rolled and folded, already.

And this doesn't say they eliminated backlighting, just polarization, which is only needed because liquid crystal layers don't block light they just twist its polarization axis so it's 90 degrees from the polarized sheet in the next layer.

Also, calling something "CMOS compatible" is like calling it "IBM PC compatible." Not the flex it's meant to appear a to be.

England? Electronics? Hopefully Lucas wasn’t involved!

I wonder how much 8,000k cables will cost?

Not in California. Haven in downtown LB accepts credit and debit.

Gamers will tell you numbers go up

>Correlation ≠ causation

I am aware that was the point of me bringing up the scientific method as a way of distinguishing the two.

We were not talking about this study, we were talking about the validity of the study that supports the theory that men are more likely to leave women with serious illnesses, than women are to leave men with serious illnesses. Which you were dismissive of.

My only point was to provide evidence for it being a common belief, as I and many other people are aware of this research. I am not involved in the original conversation of a potential study from the perspective of men concerning the health benifits of being in happy relationships. I would assume they would also be healthier as less stress is better regardless of gender, but in the world of science you don't know unless you do various studies to find out.

When we say a 10 fold greater resolution, what are we comparing that with? Do you have a pixel density (ppi) figure that you can measure?

Higher aromitization of estradiol does not necessarily equate to a reduction in total serum testosterone. The level of unbound "free testosterone" would be reduced when you introduce an agent (thc) that causes aromatization into estradiol. Total testosterone levels are not the same as bio-available levels.

I always wonder what these blindly capitalistic criminals think they are going to do with all the lucre once the world dies.

I see these advances as most potentially useful in VR contexts; we've basically maxed out relevant screen resolution for normal displays in the effective arc lengths observable by the human eye.

Correlation ≠ causation

This study is looking at the number of self-reported satisfying relationships and comparing it with how many have a chronic illness.

So, when will I be able to roll my screen into my bag ?

No but your wallet will!

That could well be true, poor environmental health may cause more illness and economic issues. However this is the point of the scientific method, it's intention is to separate false correlations from actual evidence supporting the hypothesis.

In this particular study it is quite straightforward though, the only factor being scrutinised is gender and the only context is divorce after a serious medical diagnosis. a rate of 6 times higher is quite an outstanding amount, a much higher amount than the normal divorce rate initiated by men. In normal circumstances women initiate 70% of divorces, so if gender was unrelated in the particular circumstance of divorce due to medical issues (with a similar gendered group sample size as in this study) you would assume that women would still initiate more divorces. However that is not the case, in fact it swings quite far on the side of men initiating more divorce in that context.

That is the observation in its whole, the study does not delve into the reasoning behind it. Factors such as financial responsibility could play a part especially in areas without universal health care but statistics don't care much for reasoning. This was not a study on why it is the case just if it is the case and it found that it was. A female patients likelihood of being divorced by her partner shortly after diagnosis was 20.8% vs a male patient at 2.9%, this is not a small difference and the link to gender is clear. Just like accepting evidence to fit your narrative can be unwise, ignoring evidence to fit yours isn't great either.

[removed]

Would my eyes be able to tell the difference?

Hmm, light scattering? I'm not in this field, does anyone mind explaining what that means in this context? It sounds like it wouldn't yield a clear display, but that doesn't seem to be the case based on the context—hence my curiosity!

[removed]

my Gods - how many millions did they spend to work out that people tend to buy the cheapest product.....

This deserves an IGNOBEL prize

G'day r/science! A team of our researchers, alongside ANU and Nottingham Trent University colleagues have developed a proof-of-concept technology that could eventually supersede LCDs and LED.

The tech – which has extraordinary light scattering properties – would replace the liquid crystal layer and would not require the polarisers, which are responsible for half of wasted light intensity and energy use in displays.

“Our pixels are made of silicon, which offers a long life span in contrast with organic materials required for other existing alternatives. Moreover, silicon is widely available, CMOS* compatible with mature technology, and cheap to produce.”

You can take a deep dive into the research paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-023-01078-6