encrypted_bird

Hmm... I still have my doubts, but you make a good point. I'll have to think on this a bit. Thanks for clarifying!

That's fair, but it makes me wonder if perhaps it's not the resolution that makes it crisper but other factors that come along with that price point, such as refresh rate, HDR, LCD layer quality, etc.

For example, I have two 1920x1080 monitors, but one is 160 Hz and the other is only 60 Hz, and the difference is night and day between them.

> You have to sit very close to a 4k display to be able to perceive the full resolution.

Wait, are you sure you don't have that backward? IIUC, you don't[] notice the difference between a 2K display and a 4K display until you get up to larger screen sizes (say 60+ inches give or take a dozen inches; I don't have exact numbers :) ) and with those the optimal viewing range is like 4-8 feet away (depending on the screen size).

Either that or am I missing something...

[]Generally, anyway. A 4K resolution should definitely be visible at 1-2 feet away as noticeably crisper, but only slightly.

I can back you up on that.

I regularly frequent HN, and even comment from time to time, but I don't work in tech nor do I make bank. I'm a cashier at a gas station. Lol. I'm lucky if I make $16000 a year after taxes.

It's the latter.

Listen, I only make about $350-$400 a week after taxes and deductions. So, yes, $14 a month is a LOT. With my income, even $5 can and does break the bank if I'm not careful. Not everyone has a SWE's salary.

I've been following that webcomic for 15 years. How the crap have I never noticed that before??

I agree. AFAICT there is no way to view a comic's alt-text on mobile on the desktop site. (Also, the desktop site is way too zoomed out.)

I would rather blame both.

It is our collective society's fault, yes, but the billionaires are the ones who exploit it. They are just as bad, if not worse.

Also, apologies, but I edited my above comment, and wasn't able to submit it before you replied.

And no worries. Good luck on your things. Honestly, I'm kinda done with this conversation, as interesting as it has been. It feels like it's run its course.

In any case, I hope you have a good day!

The same Andrew Forrest whose company were found to have knowingly destroyed hundreds of local Australian aboriginal sacred sites in its mining operations? Also, he's a billionaire. He may not be "scum of the earth", and maybe he's tried to do better in his latter days, but he still got horrifically rich off of everyday workers' sweat, injuries, and hardships (mining is no joke).

Besides, this philanthropy is largely just token restitution, at best. No one needs to be that wealthy to live more than comfortable. If he really wanted to help the world, he would use enough of his wealth so as to no longer be a billionaire.

People vastly underestimate just how much a billion dollars is compared to a million dollars, or even 500 million dollars. He could literally give away 99% of his wealth and still "only" have 10 million dollars. And as of of 2023 he had 33 times that much.

No one needs to hog that much of the world's resources. It is neither just nor equitable.

Haha ;D

If you are a terrible being, yes.

Succeeding at business does not alone make you a billionaire; that's a whole new level above "successful business owner". Most successful business owners are millionaires but not billionaires. As I said, no one becomes a billionaire without doing horrible things because said horrible things are exactly how you amass such a large amount of wealth amongst a single person.

Also, winning the lottery to the extent of becoming a billionaire is neither common (that's the understatement of the millennium) nor a business. It is a gamble, and a gamble millions of people lose every day because they refuse or fail to understand the sheer improbability of "getting the big one" and the sheer degree to which said gambles are stacked against the "player".

> But the corrext response is to flag, not comment.

Oh? Apologies then. Either I did not realize or I didn't remember. Either way, I'll try my best to remember in the future! Thanks!

Also, yes, I love the insult too when used in a friendly way.

I agree with you.

Frankly, imho, billionaires shouldn't even exist. No one person can get that much wealth, that much power, that much influence, without losing their humanity, their decency. It's just not possible because the only way to accrue that much wealth is to do horrifically indecent things.

So, do I recognize what you're saying? Certainly. But I won't be shedding a tear of sympathy for them. I lose all sympathy for them when they step on the necks of everyday people to get where they are.

There is no need for namecalling. This is HN. Please be respectful of your fellow commenters, even if you think they're being a walnut.

So, what? Are you suggesting that only people who have kids should be given assistance when they grow old and frail? That's hardly a solution, just unnecessarily cruel. Whether to have children or not should be a personal decision, to be had between all parties of a relationship; it should _not_ determine if you will have some semblance of security when you can no longer work or if you'll just be left to die in some back alley.

Funny thing is if people suggested forcing people (directly or, in this case, indirectly) into not having children, people would be up in arms about it.

How is it alright, meanwhile, to be forced, directly or, again, indirectly in this case, to have children?

God forbid we have a societal safety net that covers everyone!

Seriously, this whole "freeloading" nonsense is why this country still hasn't gotten universal healthcare. Because everytime someone brings it up, people shout "why should I work to provide a benefit to people who don't work to provide a benefit for me"? Because it lowers costs for EVERYONE, regardless of the fraction who don't work. And because we should live in a society that values taking care of each other instead of "screw you what's in it for me?"

Not the OC, but yeah I've noticed this myself actually. I read HN because I love science and technology, but I don't work in either area. I work at a dead-end job as a cashier and barely make ends meet. Some of the people on here are exceedingly privileged and really don't realize it.

Because most people are neither properly educated about investing nor have the money to spare to even start.

Most people are living paycheck to paycheck.

That is unfortunate.

They did say "and strong courts willing to enforce it." What good is a law without enforcement, after all?

Care to elaborate? You can't just say "I disagree" without explaining why you disagree.

/s?

Tbf parent did say that people are _generally_ happy with their phones. I.e. they didn't say everyone is.

I think it's less a case of which is better and more of which is less bad...

Do they actually say in the TOS that they will delete them? If they do, do they say immediately? How immediately? Right away or, perhaps, 1 month? Unless specified in contractual documentation, words like "immediately" or "soon" do not have any single definition, which allows them to stretch it without technically being in breach of contract. Not to mention that often times, governments mandate data retention for so-and-so amount of time, so the companies are legally required in such cases to keep the data even if they, miraculously, desire not to.

Ah, okay. Thank you for explaining!

Forgive my ignorance, but why is it a problem for UK military number plates to be put on vehicles in Germany? I'm sure the answer is probably obvious, but I still don't see it. Sorry.

I would very much disagree with the latter assertion. I work as a cashier, and I get 50s and 100s _all the time_. I wish they'd stop because it drains my till very fast. Lol.

What do you mean?