baka-dubbs

wood1208 said:

Every time OLED screen  in watches,phones,tablets,laptops,monitors,TVs come up; lingering question is screen/pixel "burn-in" effect. Do people see it or it is just Samsung's marketing offense to look LG bad ?

I think like a lot of technologies, burn in was an issue early on.  As the panels have gotten better and the software that "refreshes" the pixels has also improved, its become less and less of a concern.  While I don't think I would use an OLED as a monitor at this point, I would have no concern as a TV, iPhone or (hopefully) iPad.  For me the benefits outweigh the concerns.  Also, Samsung has a new panel tech called QD OLED, which sounds like just another marketing label but is actually significantly different from Samsungs/LG's older WOLED tech.  Instead of a RGBW sub pixel array, it simply uses a Blue sub pixel array with a Quantum Dot layer that filters that blue light to the needed color.  The result is supposed to be a brighter and truer color because you are eliminating the need for the white sub pixel that was used to boost the brightness on WOLED's.  I can't say if it will have an effect on burn in over time, but apparently the sub pixels don't have to be pushed as hard as standard WOLED and have an expected longer lifespan while still having improved brightness.  I am hoping Samsung is making these panels at smaller sizes and not just focusing on TV's.

digitol said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Before anyone gets too excited about a hole punch camera, consider this invisible, behind the screen front facing camera in this ZTE phone released a year ago now and two years before the iPhone 14:

Could not agree more! Plain and simple, Apple lied to us, and continues to use the notch under the excuse that it's not possible to put the sensors under the screen. Samsung, (and I greatly dislike Samsung, so this pains me to admit) has had a sensor hidden under screen, notchless design for a looong time now. 

Under display camera's are still not that great.  If you look at the ZTE screen or the Samsung under display camera's on the fold, both the screen and the camera's are compromised.  Now I think Apple can likely have some form of IR system that works through a screen and leave the hole punch for the camera itself, but I don't think these through display camera's are ready for prime time.  Maybe in a few generations, but in this area Apple is reliant on Samsung/LG/etc for the advance OLED tech.  I am curious if apple has managed to shrink the Face ID sensors to a level where they are essentially part of the bezel, similar to what Dell has done with some of there windows hello camera's.  Or Apple may still be working on the rumored Micro LED screens, but those always seem to be a few years away from every manufacturer.  

This just reminded me of how much I liked Palm's webOS when it was released. Its "card" based multitasking greatly influenced both IOS and android, and they moved away from Physical buttons way before everyone else.  The Palm Pre was such a good phone, unfortunately it was a Sprint exclusive at a really bad time for Sprint.

crowley said:

Business aims to have more business. Good business news.

Yeah, that's my take, they aren't looking to reduce their share of Apple's business, they are looking to continue to grow other business.  Right now their 7nm production is so swamped that its causing massive backlogs(PS5, Xbox, Ryzen and Radeon, as well as older Apple chips).  They continue to lead in developing new process nodes, so they will continue to get more business unless Samsung(more likely) or Intel(less likely) can catch their Fab's up.

22july2013 said:

baka-dubbs said:

22july2013 said:

baka-dubbs said:

22july2013 said:

People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide. 

Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is.   Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction).  Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station.  Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that.  Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.

So there's no heat/friction in an electric car? And currently we already have transportation of fuel to gas stations, so that's not an issue at all. In fact, some people will create the gasoline locally on their property, so it's an improvement on the whole situation.

And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?

Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.

Wow, going with politics when common sense fails...

 Electric cars use energy more efficiently than internal combustion, its not even arguably.  To your second “point” of course we have infrastructure for transporting gasoline, it’s loading it into trucks and trains that’s also consume gasoline or diesel in order to transport the fuel.  By that idea, we should all just use generators at our homes instead of relying on electric lines, since that is efficient?  Their is also the energy used to refine the fuel in the first place.

Your not seeking improvement, you want to maintain the status quo because change is scary to you.  But history shows you either embrace change or get left behind.  There is nothing political about wanting cleaner more efficient transportation.

That's not the reason I support gasoline. I told you that when gasoline is made from water and CO2, it is 100% clean. You didn't dispute that, so you know I'm right. The reason I support gasoline when it's made from water and CO2 is because it is clean, and because we already have the automobiles that use it. Since you haven't said how you expect to make people  like me start using electric cars, I presume you want to take away my freedom to choose gas cars. I have to assume that because you are refusing to explain your position. My position is the status quo, so there's no more I need to say. Your position is unclear. You don't say how you intend to force your views on purchasers.

By the way, I never argued that electric isn't more efficient than gas, so stop harping on that. That has nothing to do with my point.

Once again, I presume you want some method to outlaw gas powered cars. Please deny that. I believe in freedom to choose what kind of cars we want. And it seems that you oppose freedom. 

The whole point is that it isn't efficient.  Your being intentionally obtuse.  You have to input lots of energy to convert various sources into a "clean fuel".  That clean fuel then loses efficiency due to general inefficiency of the combustion engine.  I addressed all of this, you just ignored it.   I am not saying gasoline cars should be outlawed, I am saying that your "clean gas" is not only inefficient, it will be expensive.  It costs $90 per tank(manufactured fuel through hydrolysis) to fill up a hydrogen car, to only get 400 miles.  I believe it costs between $6-$12 to get the same mileage out of a Tesla, and the electricity is readily available.  Your not helping your cause by repeating freedom, you just sound like your triggered and need a safe space.  We don't need to "Outlaw" the gasoline car, you can be a "cool diesel bro" if you want, I am saying market forces are accelerating towards electric cars.