dissociate

The article is paywalled, but from the part I could read, it sounds like they’re just making hyperbolic colors, which is a pretty well known phenomenon which you can experience at home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color#Chimerical_colors

They’ve done it using a new technique which is cool, but seeing super saturated hyperbolic colors is not a new thing.

I’m not quite sure what you mean. If you took a picture of an orange and sampled a pixel from it, it wouldn’t look like an orange (fruit) any more, but it would look orange (color). Likewise sampling a pixel from a picture of a piece of gold wouldn’t look like gold (metal), but it would still be gold (color).

Gold is – it’s an orangeish yellow. I think what you’re meaning is that when people say “gold”, they usually are referring to the material properties of the metal as well. But the actual color does have a spectral hue. Magenta on the other hand, (including shades of pink that fall under magenta) is not a spectral color, and is just how our brain interprets the combination of signals from our red and blue cones.

To be fair, it’s the same for humans.

Yes, you can run ollama via termux.

Gemma 3 4b is probably a good model to use. 1b if you can’t run it or it’s too slow.

I wouldn’t rely on it for therapy though. Maybe it could be useful as a tool, but LLMs are not people, and they’re not even really intelligent, which I think is necessary for therapy.

You might want to reread my comment because you’re just making false claims that are already addressed about color and resolution

No I’m not. OLED has better contrast and a wider color gamut than the best CRT. And it can have high refresh rate without dropping the resolution below the already low native resolution.

4K resolution, ultra-wide aspect ratio, and extremely high framerates are simply marketing gimmicks

So anything that your current hardware can’t do is a “marketing gimmick”? Okay… But at a minimum that would mean that OLED is just “unnecessarily” better. I’m not saying it has to matter to you, but the benefits of high framerate don’t abruptly stop at 120fps, and 4k isn’t even reaching the point of diminishing returns if you’re not using a tiny 17" display.

It is not physically possible that a human could see flicker at 85Hz.

This is just not true. You may not notice it, but many people can. There’s an issue with LED lightbulbs flickering at 120hz, for example.

Anyway I’m not saying you shouldn’t enjoy your CRT, I think it’s cool! I just don’t think it’s better than OLED in any tangible way.

I’ll agree that early LCD screens were really bad. TN looks terrible. I think a modern IPS or VA is a better experience than CRT in some ways, (often better color, better resolution, display size, etc.) but still has major issues like poor response time and motion clarity.

CRT does have some advantages– it is good for retro games, as a lot of pixel art was designed for the slight blur that CRTs have (waterfalls in some games, for example). And they do have good motion clarity compared to sample and hold displays, but it’s because they are flickery. 85Hz flicker isn’t as bad as 60hz, but it’s still really uncomfortable for many people. It’s one reason why almost nobody uses backlight strobing on LCD monitors. Not worth the tradeoff for most.

OLED really is pretty close to perfect, though. Vibrant accurate colors with excellent motion clarity and high refresh smoothness, virtually infinity contrast…

Trinitron really was ahead of its time, but a 32" 4k 240fps P3 OLED doesn’t match it, it far exceeds it.

I think you might be a bit crazy, haha. I do have some nostalgia for CRT, but OLED is far better in every single way.

Larger available size, Higher available resolution and better clarity, Higher available refresh rate, Wider color gamut and more accurate colors, Higher contrast ratio, etc.

Not to mention how flickery CRT is.

I 100% get the appeal of old tech, but it’s a bit silly to say it’s equivalent to modern stuff.

This sort of flickering can be really noticeable especially at low brightness, with the always-on display for example (although still nowhere near as bad as 60hz CRT flicker *shudders*)

But I honestly do not believe thet you’re able to see 4000+ hz flickering. If you genuinely can, I’m sure you could get a world record for that.

Think about it this way - everything moves through spacetime at the same “speed”, so the faster you go through space, the slower you move through time, which is why photons experience no time.

And nothing is okay for people who are just using it for web browsing and streaming.

I want local music, and to be able to take pictures without worrying about storage, etc. so ~20GB isn’t enough for me, but for some people it really is fine.

My guess is $30, could be $40 although I doubt it after the response they got.

Any general purpose consumer device should probably have 64GB or more.

But I don’t see the point in disallowing <32GB, as that can still be enough for using tablets for lots of uses like e-readers, smart home displays, kiosks, etc.

In practice, this just means that low end devices will stay on older versions of Android even more than they do already.

I’ve tried it, but there isn’t any traffic data, so it’s really not usable for me. Also the search isn’t great either, and there’s no lane indicator.

Don’t get me wrong, I think OSM and Organic are great projects, they just don’t really compare to other options for my use.

Honestly I might consider giving this a try. I really don’t want Google to have my location at all times, and I trust Apple at least a bit more with my data. Currently using Magic Earth, but the traffic info and search, while usable, are not great.

Not at all, I perceive depth fine.

If I focus back on my hand, the two images align, and I see both images of the background. It’s just that I’m always seeing information from both eyes.

If anything, from my perspective it’s everyone else who I would expect to have difficulties with depth perception. You’re only perceiving one eye consciously, (In the binocular overlap region), and the other eye is just used for depth information by your subconscious, is that correct?

I’ve heard of this test before, and it makes no sense to me. If I focus on a distant object, I see two images of my hand, one for each eye. So I’d have to choose which one to put over the object.

That’s interesting, for most people the brain just substitutes in the image of where your eye moves to, so it feels instantaneous. (there’s no noticeable blindness) But you can see throughout the full movement?

In a similar vein, I never understood having a “dominant eye”. I honestly don’t really understand the concept, I guess most people’s brains will cancel out information from one eye?

At least this is a real train, not “pods” or just some teslas in a tunnel.