Both screens have equal pixel densities and have 326 ppi (the larger screen has consequently more pixels). Where do you get your 290/302 ppi from? That’s just wrong.
The display of the 38 mm watch (38 mm refers to the height of the whole watch body, including bezel – it’s ill-fitted for calculating pixel density) is 21.22 mm wide (0.8354 inches) and has 272 horizontal pixels. That’s 325.6 ppi.
The display of the 42 mm watch is 24.34 mm wide (0.9583 inches) and has 312 horizontal pixels. That’s also 325.6 ppi.
That’s the same pixel density as the iPhone (excluding the 6+ with a higher pixel density and older non-retina iPhones).
Now you can argue about whether typical viewing distances for watches are closer or farther than for phones (whether or not a screen is “Retina” is always a function of the typical viewing distance and the pixel density, never pixel density alone and there is no single device independent pixel density that is “Retina”), though I actually think on balance they are probably slightly farther or the same.
The point was rather to give the fighting appropriate and effective political venues for resolving conflicts and finding effective solutions. There will never be no fighting because that is not possible or at least quite unhealthy. After all, isn’t the point of politics to solve conflicts – which are quite normal and will always be everywhere – in a non-violent way? (Tools for solving conflicts between nations in a non-violent way have always been quite limited – with obvious disastrous consequences, especially as we got better at killing each other.)
However, I do agree that it is sad that fighting is happening along national lines and that ugly stereotypes and propaganda play the role they do.
Just recently I was watching serious and respectable German TV and some expert was – probably unintentionally, but hey that’s stereotypes and toxic thinking for you, it worms itself into your heads – talking about Greeks “hiding” money at home after withdrawing it that would be inaccessible and as such money the creditors would have to pay. This toxic way of framing the conversation is just so sad. Greek people who withdraw their very own money from banks because they are unable to trust those banks are not hiding anything or doing anything immoral or unethical or even slightly impolite. They are the victims in that situation – and we have to be very careful how we talk about people, especially if we generally talk about “Greeks” or “Germans” or whatever.
Do you remember Cyprus ? One day they are good hard working European, the next day all of them are gangster laundering russian crime money and taking money out of their bank account is fair justice ( but fear not brave citizen, your money is safe at the bank because your are not dishonest like they are )
Europe has treated its "citizen" like rubbish since the crisis. You can hardly blame the push of Eurosceptic parties across Europe - in time of crisis, Europe is really ugly.
Greek people withdrawing money (and mostly getting it out of the country) show a lack of support to their country. This excerbates the problems of their financial system. It also begs the question why the rest of europe should schow solidarity with a country if its own people dont.
Voting against austerity and restructuring policies is not standing behind your goverment/nation. Trusting it with your money is.
A biological difference leads to different options for different genders. (The delineation isn’t even strictly along gender lines, though, since this only applies to people who can become pregnant. Most of those are women, sure, but many women cannot become pregnant, for example.)
If you value bodily autonomy (which I really hope you do – otherwise this discussion is kind of pointless) the only person who can decide what happens with their own body is the actual pregnant person – and no one else. This consequently means that we can only put this decision into their hands. It’s a function of the biological difference.
I mean, misogynist assholes like to bang on and on and on about biological differences (most often referring to things we don’t even really know are biological differences) and how those make it imperative to treat genders differently – but here we have a crystal clear example of a biological difference leading to different options for different people – and suddenly that’s no ok?
We are discussing whether men or women have more rights. The ability
that women have to force men into parenthood is a clearcut example
of women having more rights than men, regardless of whether one agrees
with the the existence of this right or not. Moreover, the critical cases here have
nothing to do with "bodily autonomy", that's a smoke screen. They have to do with alimony. A
woman can rape a man, get pregnant that way and the biological father
has to pay alimony . A woman can steal a man's sperm, get pregnant and
the biological father has to pay alimony . That's outrageous! What are
you doing to redress this injustice?
As an aside, referring to "misogynist assholes" is rarely helpful.
This is about kids. If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions. That’s the overriding doctrine in the law. This is the basic doctrine I very much do support. Both parents are supposed to be equally responsible for their offspring once it is in the world, no ifs and buts.
That the mother has the ability to not make the kid exist in the first place is a function of where the baby grows up, nothing more, and basically completely unrelated to that.
Can we please talk about this basic doctrine and not weird edge cases?
If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions.
I strongly disagree with this doctrine, because it disadvantages men in practise. If the child was conceived against the explicit will of one the involved parties, that party should not be coerced to pay for, or look after the child. Women absolutely need to acquire written conception consent prior to conception. No written consent, no alimony. No means no. It's shocking that one needs to spell this out in 2015!
Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids because it asymmetrically sets up hurdles.
The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered. Once a kid is there it needs to be taken care of and both parents share that responsibility. Wanting to wriggle out of this responsibility is, frankly, highly immoral.
Also, conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy (of the person who is no pregnant). I find it shocking that you would jump to rape rhetorics for your political aims.
Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids
Your doctrine does in practice massively disadvantage both men and kids! Why do you insist that women need to be better off than men?
The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered.
No, it's not. It is female-centered. What the woman wants is the law. It's easy to see. If in a divorce case, the child wants to stay with dad, that will be ignored, and the child will be given to the mother. Please familiarise yourself with the facts.
Once a kid is there
You keep trying to reframe the discussion so that you don't have to admit to the truth, which is that women have more rights than men. Please stop this! So let's start again:
Once a kid is there
Women should not force, brutalise or rape men into fatherhood. And where they do, the biological father has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to look after the child, and even less to fund the lifestyle of the criminal party. It is shocking, shocking that you defend these sorts of crimes.
conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy
So what? Stealing your money also doesn't impact bodily autonomy, should it therefore be legal?
OK, so what happens if the child is born and the woman drops it off at a "safe haven" without the father's knowledge? It's well out of her body, but a woman is never forced to be a mother if she doesn't want to be. On the other hand, a woman can have a child and force the man into fatherhood.
Not every space flight failure is the result of an explosion.
The Progress vehicle did actually enter an orbit (it reached space and was circling the Earth for a couple days), just the wrong one and after that it spun out of control and was no longer controllable from the ground. Since there is still some atmosphere and some drag in low Earth orbit it eventually was slowed down enough to burn up.
Basically, it failed because it couldn't be controlled anymore, no explosions involved. (Had it been launched to an higher orbit it may well have stayed up for a long, long time, no explosions or anything else interesting going on, just spinning round and round and being uncontrollable.)
They are stocked for months. As you can imagine, if your delivery mechanisms have a somewhat higher than usual risk of failure you don’t really go for just in time delivery.
There are several ways of supplying the ISS, though the very reliable Russian Progress (which also did have a failure recently – not a good year for cargo shipments to the ISS) is certainly the workhorse in terms of cargo shipments. (Though there is also the Japanese HTV and the – also recently failed – Cygnus.)
Any one or even couple failures of cargo vehicles in a row can’t do much to the supply situation. There are multiple redundancies built into the process. However, since really no one wants to abandon the ISS (just deserting it and coming back a couple months later is always risky with something as complex as the ISS that does require constant upkeep) that better be the case.
There will probably be quite some rescheduling and changing of plans happening. (I know that after the last cargo failure three people actually got to stay up in space a couple days longer, for whatever complicated scheduling related changes in plans.)
Neither you nor the person you are responding to probably has the requisite qualifications to actually tell …
Judging something like this without relying on outside signals seems rather impossible and pointless if you are not, you know, an actual expert. No matter how much you want to believe you can be one about everything …
Think of the eternal vastness of configuration spaces (even in domains as restricted as, say, static HTML/CSS pages) and then you know why AB testing is not a solution to everything. (Multivariate testing, too. It’s just slightly more elegant in some respects, but suffers from the same basic deficits and additionally has its own issues.)
Time is limited and traffic is limited. You simply cannot test everything, in fact, the amount of variants you can actually test during, say, a year may be shockingly low compared to the amount of variants possible (at least if you are not Google – but most aren’t).
Without a strong sense of direction and discerning eyes and hands that provide plausible variants to test, AB testing can be quite useless. AB testing is a great tool to verify hypotheses (and those may well be competing hypotheses), but I really question its usefulness as a creative tool.
If you can plausibly only do a couple of AB tests a year (the possibility of running an AB test being a function of traffic and time) you better not waste that opportunity on button colors or some similar nonsense.
Sure, evolution through natural selection produced some awesome designs and is basically a completely blind process based purely on testing of different variants with only slight and random differences with no involvement of any designer at all (sound familiar?) – but it also took billions of years. Most designers just don’t have that kind of time …
To more directly answer your question, AB tests can certainly be used to defend against bad hypotheses. If there is a culture of testing and new designs have to be battle tested then that’s less of an opportunity for someone in a position of power to screw things up by fiat. However, that’s also a tremendous waste of time and efficiency if bad designs that could be sieved out quickly by simple heuristics have to also first be tested, which is just a slow process and a wasted opportunity to test something better.
Maybe think of AB testing as a last line of defense, but be careful, AB tests can be paralyzing. (Or rather, first AB tests paralyze everything, then the boss is annoyed by how slow everything is going and changes everything by fiat and immediately without any testing at all. From one extreme to the other …)
The zeal with which some people view free speech is really quite adorable. I don’t think it’s really so important. (It is important, sure, just not that important. And limiting free speech is certain a-ok with me, within limits.)
Very well. Stop posting completely on HN because HN is now liable even if it takes down hate speech within 24 hours of notification if it was run by an Estonian and/or had connections to Estonia [say via e-Residency].
Its cute how people are ready to sell other groups of people down the river without accepting the broader implications.
I mean, what’s this non-sensical hyperbole disconnected from reality? What’s wrong with criticizing someone and saying that what he was doing is not ok?! I mean, what are you even talking about?! The hell.
He was representing this mission to the world and he was in that position as an obvious role model and, in that moment, in a public facing role. If we cannot criticize someone like that, who are we allowed to criticize?
Also, how disconnected from any resemblance of reality can one comment be. I’m just astonished at you complete hyperbole.
Once again, let's be clear what he did that required criticism -- or, more accurately, furious accusations of sexism from dozens of news outlets, mass public shaming from an angry worldwide mob, and an tearful apology on international television.
He wore a shirt.
That's what you're energetically defending. Worldwide mobbing, targeting by the media, and a forced public apology reminiscent of misbehaving Party officials. For wearing a shirt. Let's be absolutely clear about this, please.
Also, this is not some defenseless guy, caught by some camera on accident. Position of power, public role in that instance – and consequently also the responsibility that comes with that. You act like this is some little defenseless kid, unable to handle one little criticism … and you are constantly blowing the actual response and the actual criticism completely out of proportion, pretending it to be bullying or mobbing or some such bullshit. This was a tiny, tiny, tiny story. (The wailing misogynists made it big, you know.)
I think he just might be able to handle a bit of harsh criticism. Because that’s what this was. The horror. (Also, he had hordes of misogynists defending him within seconds, though I doubt he liked that.)
I’m absolutely clear about being absolutely in love with free speech and consequently criticizing someone for wearing a dumb shirt. Sure.
Thousands of people on social media, reacting to dozens of instances of journalistic incitement by launching ill-informed attacks and accusations of the worst possible social sin in the Western world, to the extent that he had to deliver a tearful apology on worldwide television? Sounds like a mob to me.
"Position of power, public role in that instance – and consequently also the responsibility that comes with that."
You're describing a politician, not a scientist. This guy was not "famous" except among the microscopic sliver of people who follow space science. He was not "powerful" except in a tiny group of ten people or so. He was briefly in the public spotlight and the response was a ginned-up mob. Let's say you briefly become famous for something you do in your day job. Is it fair for a mob to come after _you_?
"I’m absolutely clear about being absolutely in love with free speech and consequently criticizing someone for wearing a dumb shirt. Sure."
Nobody's saying you don't have the free speech to criticize a scientist for wearing a shirt. You certainly do! And similarly, everyone else has the free speech to tell you how overwrought and disproportionate your criticism is.
Anyway, since you've stated clearly that you're fine with what happened to him for wearing a shirt, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.