Dark mode on an oled reduces brightness (and power consumption).
Dark mode on my work laptop (not oled) reduces backlight brightness. This is auto-tragical, because it seems to only respond to changes in the display buffer's average requested luminance, instead of using an ambient light sensor. Dropping backlight toward minimum when the room is bright makes the screen mostly unreadable. And there's no control for this. Dell should be ashamed!
More importantly, if you place any darkening filter, including a darkened set of pixels, in front of a light source, it reduces the brightness. But perhaps the main concern you intended is "power consumption", not "emitted lux"? If, I'd say "Depends on your application.".
Man, I forgot NeoPlanet. Thanks for the reminder! It was one of a bazillion IE-based browsers. I vaguely recall it had some nice features that seemed they should be in every browser…but I can't remember any of them now.
They patched the "non-existent" issue it seems. And totally denied it happened in the first place. Honestly, someone should do a dump of redacted client documents to teach them a lesson. Short of a class action lawsuit would be an understatement. This is really huge.
As has been said before, sites that don't use unnecessary cookies don't need to have a cookie banner. Having the banner is often just malicious compliance (or for a non-compliant one banner, maliciously non-compliant).
The first one I remember is RealPlayer. I think the official story was that they were having more and more trouble convincing people to install upgrades (at a time when 56k and slower modems were still common, dowloading an app could take minutes, ugrade nags seemed to be ever present), so they decide to name the new major version RealOne Player "because it's the One, the only One you need, the One that does everything for you".
Of course, this meant that the next time they tried to get anybody to install a patch, some of us felt annoyed because. RealOne Player wasn't "the One" after all. Why should we get back on the treadmill of waiting for downloads that rarely seem necessary?
Ahem. I think this event sensitised me against all attempts at using "one" like that. I mentally flip a table every time.
"one data structure" doesn not have to mean "all data it one instance". Each of 100 functions could take a slice of data, or use a separate datastore which has the same structure. Separate instances of one structure can be passed by reference or value, and the receiver, because all 100 functions use the same data structure, understands what to do with what it received.
>> There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed
>
> Irrelevant.
While I don't see why "unenforceable laws" is being mentioned so many times, given the plethora of other laws, I possit that since one of the prior comments was that enforcing them would be damageous, perhaps the intended wording is "unenforced laws" (as distinct from laws which cannot be enforced). If so, then I suggest their relevance.
>> A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely
>
> Can you point to laws that the majority of the population agrees are unjust that have existed since the beginning of the United States? If not, then there's zero unjust laws being perpetuated indefinitely, and so your conclusion is invalid by your own argument.
This the flaw that a law being perpetuated "indefinitely" (that is, without defined end) need not have existed since the beginning of the United States. Such law could have begun at any after, or indeed prior.
>> In fact, there's no such binary.
>
> That's true, you can "just ignore those laws" - and you'll be a hypocrite. The binary that I'm describing is clearly moral. I'm not saying that you physically must take one position or the other (as you're implying) - just that if you pick a value in the middle, you're a hypocrite, and your opinions are worthless, because you don't really believe them - you're just saying whatever is most convenient/advantageous for you at the moment.
This formulation is not constructive of enlightened debate. Kindly sheath your daggers and reply without invectives. As written, that might easily be read both as personal attack and casual dismisal of entire person. For what is a person who has no opinions?
Now, if I understand your position correctly, you believe that all laws must be obeyed, and that disobeying any law is immoral. Do we each believe that some laws are, whether past or present, immoral? In the case that a law can be immoral, I must hold that the resultant moral obligations are to disobey that law to the fullest and to endeavour to best ability for its most expedient and most moral removal.
Dark mode on an oled reduces brightness (and power consumption).
Dark mode on my work laptop (not oled) reduces backlight brightness. This is auto-tragical, because it seems to only respond to changes in the display buffer's average requested luminance, instead of using an ambient light sensor. Dropping backlight toward minimum when the room is bright makes the screen mostly unreadable. And there's no control for this. Dell should be ashamed!
More importantly, if you place any darkening filter, including a darkened set of pixels, in front of a light source, it reduces the brightness. But perhaps the main concern you intended is "power consumption", not "emitted lux"? If, I'd say "Depends on your application.".
reply