Standard power connectors I mean, and really talking about all kinds of devices, its the power brick that annoys me, not the device ;)


Dunno, when I got the first Widescreen display I went from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200, so it just felt like more space added on the sides ;) Its also pivot-able so If I really wanted to see a full page or something id just turn it around...

This.

Fortunately they do still make 16:10 displays, just not so much for the consumer or gaming markets. I just bought 2 Dell UP3017 displays which are 16:10 but in order to do so I had to purchase professional grade displays. I do like some of the features of these more expensive displays, but I mostly wanted the physical size, resolution (2560x1600) and aspect ratio more than anything else. No cheaper consumer options available that meet my criterion.

Ultimately I want to have a triplehead 4k setup, but there are no consumer, gamer/enthusiast, or professional grade 4k 16:10 monitors available at all period anywhere. There is at least one out there that is made, but it is like $20,000 and made for some special purpose I forget (medical imaging? Movie industry? I forget). Um, no thanks. And 3 of them for triplehead? Ouch. Plus GPUs to push pixels to all 3 at 60Hz or higher? Super-ouchie.

So... no 4k for me any time soon, I'ma holdout until it becomes a thing. In the meantime I'm making do with the triplehead 2.5k displays totaling me 7680x1600 resolution at 16:10 a piece. They can pry my 16:10 from my cold dead hands. Why? Because. Reasons. :)

Oh, and I hate cell phones and tablets too, and all devices sold as "smart" devices. See "InternetofShit" on Twitter for details...

Social Media. I don't care about your political opinions or your latest bowel movements or what you just ate at McDonalds.

Some are more abused than others.

(Incidentally, one thing that bothered me when HDTVs were first coming out is that they were demonstrating it with sports programs (and I believe (American) football, which is one of the worst ones because of the violence involved).)

The good part is that you know which people aren't worth your time.

Though, apart from smartphones, the IoT is awful and touchscreens are absolutely annoying.

The problem is that you need more horizontal space to accommodate the extra width, and that width is not as useful as height would be (and having room for more height is more likely), and higher width also means that the eyes have to move farther for each line of text on the page.

Also, not every one is pivotable.

Another similar factor is that smartphones have been losing features; only some of the earliest ones have physical keyboards, and the current top-of-the-line models lack headphone jacks.

Now you got me curious. What's wrong with sports and/or violent sports? Not to debate anything, just curious of the reasoning behind the statement.

Problems with sports:
* The crowd noise has been known to give me a headache, and it isn't actually pleasant.
* There's always a loser. (Encountering sore winners as a child is one thing that contributes to me having an issue with this.)
* Real world violence just isn't pleasant to watch.
* There's also a sexist aspect; the sports events that get the most attention, and which make the most money, are men's sports which have no women competing in them. (Women's sports exist, but they're separate events and generally don't get as much attention.)

Also, sports just aren't as interesting as video games.

If I'm going to watch a sporting event, it better be something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4ib8d59sg
(But there's still the problem of crowd noise.)

Or, perhaps something like this orchestral work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzXoVo16pTg

That's just how life is, though....... in life there's always a loser in most things/events. Imho it's better that some people lose once in awhile. It has various benefits, as well:

People who lose will either try harder(and get better physically/mentally/spiritually through being tested as a result), or realize that their chosen hobby/profession isn't really a good fit and they will go on to try other things that they WILL excel in.

It gives ACTUAL MEANING to the term "winner". Instead of giving everyone an award/ribbon/pat on the back(which devalues said awards/ribbons by doing so), only those who excel at something are praised for such(and thus the praise is more valuable/genuine than so called "participation" awards).

People who "lose" actually win by developing thicker skin/stronger character .

This is one of the most valuable life lessons a person will learn.

The thing is, there doesn't need to be competition with other people for the term "winner" to have any meaning. For example, we can look at a very difficult single player game; I'll use Tetris the Grand Master 2 PLUS, and T.A. Death mode (Death for short) as my example. This is a single player game, so not every game will have a loser. However, this game, and in particular this mode, is so difficult that it will take a typical player years of practice before they're able to clear it even once. Winning is an accomplishment, but it doesn't require you to be better than any other player, and therefore, in any group of people, it is (at least theoretically) possible for all of them to win.

Also, I would say that if everyone is good enough to earn the awards, everyone should be given those awards; the problem comes when one who is good enough to earn an award is denied an award just because someone happens to be better. (An example of this is class rank in college admissions; it punishes people who happen to be in the same grade level with more smart people; there's a reason colleges have moved away from it, and I believe many schools stopped reporting it.)

Another thing I could mention, that's more relevant to the "sore winners" comment in my post (which you did not address at all), is the fact that many people feel that they don't have permission to lose. This can cause all sorts of mental issues. When there are sore winners and you lose, the sore winners bully you for that, and it feels like you don't have permission to lose.

As for your last comment, I consider any suggestion to grow thicker skin to be quite offensive, and therefore I don't see that statement to be in your favor. Also, when there are sore winners, losing can actually result in emotional damage.

Hmmm... I hate to read "rouge" for "rogue" like; i hate to find always the same competitive multiplayer crap at the top spots on Twitch; i hate google playstore (android) scamming refunds with a maze of a "support" site.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning, that perspective regarding sports was new to me.

Agreed.

Sadly, though, many are told to treat everyone with kid gloves/like some exceptional specimen(not saying we shouldn't treat others nicely, just that we shouldn't do it falsely just to make people feel better...well within exceptions, that is). This usually leads to those people growing up to expect such treatment from EVERYONE and when they aren't treated as such by everyone they can't handle it as well.

1. Yes, there does indeed have to be some form of challenge/competition to make "winning" have any meaning.....elsewise where's the specialness of it? Where's the value? If everyone is a winner, then is winning more than just "fluff" and basically worthless?
--------------------------------------
2. Technically there is a loser, as usually not everyone will beat such a game the first time throiugh oir in their first session. Also,m in those cases the AI/PC/programming of said game to make it challenging is the fellow competitor.

Also, in your case people feel good(presumably) by beating the game and WINNING. If everyone won by just pushing tthe start button I doubt it'd be as fulfilling.
-----------------------------------
3. It IS an accomplishment, but there is always another player/some challenge that makes winning more than just a pointless gesture(be it an AI opponent or just the challenge of the game). Also, in those games you mentioned...i.e. the AI/PC opponent.......and people will always
-------------------------------------
4. If there are enough spots/prizes to be awarded as per the rules/structure of the event, then fine)such as some races where everyone is placed according to their time/etc). If an event/sport has one set winner(usually among two teams/players) according to points scored/time spent, then no.....not everyone can or should win.

Sometimes someone will be better at something than someone else. That's life and nature. One can either better themselves and try to win again or find something else they're better at(if they choose to move on).
------------------------------------
5. I'm sorry if I missed that bit of your comment(busy with many things IRL an d online, sadly). As for "sore winners", I admit that is a proiblem and I pity those people(they were pressured by society/parents/etc to excel at something(usually something the one pushing them is part of or interested in).
-----------------------------------
6. I'm sorry you found it offensive, but truth be told I find it a good character trait/solution to one's problems(Over obsessing over fairness in various aspects of life/whatever else is bothering me at the moment). :\]
-----------------------------------
7. This can happen and is sad, but(andn this may sound callous, but) why should it be anyone's problem if they didn't actively choose to harm said person mentally & said person let themselves reach such a state instead of trying to better themselves(through counselling/taking with others/trying new things/medication/etc)?