The world tends to find that having an extraordinarily wealthy parent makes its own luck.

Exactly. Unfortunately “move fast and break things” has some disadvantages when it comes to driving in traffic.

I wouldn’t put toilet paper up my nose - I don’t trust other toilet users to not touch the toilet roll and I don’t trust the room to not have fecal particles from lidless flushing on things. I don’t want tu put someone else’s poo up my nose.

Alright, you win, I’ll never use my phone in portrait ever again, especially not to film my dog in a storm. I’ll make sure I turn that baby right to your preferred orientation and I’ll stop complaining about pointless bars at the side of other people’s portrait content.

If you want, I can go back through my canara roll and delete everything that’s in portrait just in case I’m ever tempted to sell it to a news organisation. I’ll make sure to only ever post landscape content to whatsapp, signal and especially tiktok and instagram, because otherwise some relative, friend or random Internet user might share it in portrait.

You’re right. That’s definitely a better solution than not putting annoying fuzzy bars on portrait content.

And when anyone films in portrait, make sure to punish anyone trying to watch the footage with a similarly criminal portrait orientation, by putting borders round the side of the portrait content to force it to be landscape, thus shrinking the content to roughly a ninth of their screen, unless they switch to the blessed landscape orientation when it will fill a glorious third of the screen. Let no one watch it full size for the creator thereof has sinned against the gods of landscape.

This is the right and proper punishment for content creators who break the landscape law: let no one see this video fullscreen, for they have sinned against landscape. https://ibb.co/x2MQQG2 let the borders of landscape wrath descend and pad, and let fullscreen be disabled for all, for if landscape viewers are denied fullscreen EVERYONE MUST SUFFER.

Oh, or you could just skip the fuzzy bars in portrait mode if you’re feeling more accommodating to phone users.

Many of the references are 404, and the key papers according to the article are by completely different authors than claimed with different titles than claimed, and nothing to do with “information thermodynamics”. I suspect that this is AI generated nonsense.

Yes, and that’s great, it really is, but when the footage you have is portrait, don’t pad it out to force landscape orientation on it irrespective of the orientation of the viewer’s screen, just let portrait content be full size portrait when viewed on a portrait screen. That is the beginning, the middle and the end of my point. It’s all I’m asking for.

But the fuzzy bars on the side make it great?!?

Watching portrait footage that’s been padded out to landscape on a portrait device is even worse!

I’m proposing that the web designer writes a responsive webpage when they are sent a portrait video to include, so that if it’s viewed on a portrait device it fills the width, and when it’s viewed on a landscape device it fills the height. If it’s actually for telly, there’s usually no harm in cropping a bit at the top and bottom and at that point, feel free to put whatever you like down the sides, but there’s no need to throw away the portrait original for the portrait view of the website.

Like I already said, the technology for writing a webpage that looks different depending on the orientation of the device being used to view it is neither complicated nor new. There’s no need to treat every medium the same in 2023.

I never said it’s lower quality. Not once.

No? This you?

we kept everything to a certain standard of quality. Vertical videos are not suitable for anything except a phone.

Totally not lower quality. Definitely not. There’s a full stop and everything. No link whatsoever. My bad.

No one said anything about websites.

Well I think the rest of us are discussing a video on bbc.co.uk, which is a website, and we’re doing it on lemmy.world, which is also a website, and when I complained about people making portrait videos landscape, I suspect most people correctly figured out that I meant on websites, so I really think it’s just you that assumes we’re talking about jeep club.

Why can’t you use it? Because your web designer isn’t designing for the possibility that people use a phone to access the Web, but it’s not 2004 any more and they’re living in the past.

You showed your colours when you assumed that portrait video is of lower quality. It’s only of lower quality if you’ve padded it out and are watching it on a landscape screen!

Technology to detect whether your webpage is being viewed landscape has existed for a long time, and takes very simple calculations indeed or just a splash or two of css to maximise the video size for whatever screen it’s being viewed on. It’s design laziness and wasted bandwidth to put the silly blurry bars or even black bars down the side of the video. But don’t force landscape on everyone. Smart phones aren’t new and they aren’t going away.

I suspect that the majority of people who spend even a tiny bit more than half of their recreational screen time looking at a fixed landscape screen are well over thirty.

Fantastic video, but it winds me up when they add padding to a phone video to make it landscape, as if no one in existence might possibly be viewing their phone-generated content on a phone.

You’re right.

Oh, I thought it was the CEO’s online reputation and the fact the people are hearing more and more that their after sales service is shit, eg being charged £17000 for a new motor which is apparently the driver’s fault for driving it in the rain. In Scotland.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/motors/couple-charged-17000-tesla-broke-27925815

Apparently the problem has been known for some time:

https://insideevs.com/news/534878/tesla-models-motor-fail-rain/

Idiots.

I’m happy to let mods carve out a bunch of niche communities with their own preferences. The fediverse is a big place. If you don’t like instances that are protective of LGBT+ folks you’re cutting it down a bit, but genuinely, you seem to be deliberately picking topics that troll the specific community you’re posting on, then you complained that they took it down. Post where your post will be welcome, stop complaining when you post where you already know it’s not. Reddit and twitter are pretty right wing and troll friendly. Maybe you’ll be happier there.

Paint roller

Fair enough, yeah, you don’t want to be reading anything more complicated than a sentence or two, otherwise the might be a risk of developing understanding or perspective. Best avoided.

Sorry to have overestimated your attention span.

Well, whilst I abhor the violent terrorism that Hamas have committed and abhor the overwhelming overreaction and horrific vengence that the state of Israel have, as usual, immediately begun, it’s just not accurate to call what preceded recent events “peace”.

The people I know who have separately and recently visited Israel and Palestine variously called it “viscious apartheid”, “appalling”, “military occupation” and phrases like that. No one called it peace.

I think you erroneously assumed that because it wasn’t in the news, violence was not occurring, whereas I think it’s more accurate to say that it wasn’t in the news because the violence was so everyday and constant that there was nothing new to say about it. A child getting run over by a car won’t make the national news either, for almost exactly the same reason.

OK, let me put it another way. I don’t think there’s a safe amount of incel writing to read and I think that the phrase “involuntary celibate” is loaded with resentment from the start.

I think it’s OK for any of us to be unhappy that we’re not in a sexual relationship, but I strongly believe that categorising onesself as having celibacy imposed is, at the outset, inventing a fictional collective will and conspiracy on the part of a large and nebulous group of people, who are individually and collectively not even slightly responsible for any individual’s or group’s happiness or sex life. As a self-label, it inexorably leads to blaming others.

It’s true that some teenaged girls can be powerfully cruel, dismissive, hurtful and nasty to boys who take an interest in them, and at those times, those girls are guilty of psychologically damaging the teenaged boys they have emotionally attacked, but they are still not in any way whatsoever responsible for anybody’s sex life nor in any way whatsoever for the lack thereof.

It’s also an oxymoron. The word celibate is only correctly used for someone who has chosen to abstain from sex for some reason (usually religious). It’s logically impossible to involuntarily abstain, because abstinence is a choice but definition. For example, if you are ineligible to vote or someone prevents you somehow from boring, you aren’t abstaining. You are only abstaining if you can vote but choose not to.

So, in summary, involuntary celibate is a phrase that deliberately twists meaning and twists morality, placing responsibility and blame on a group of people who are neither responsible or to blame.

You claim that involuntary celibate has a real, obvious and clear meaning, but I disagree with everything in that assertion. Involuntary abstinence is meaningless as a concept, lacks clarity of thought and obscures meaning. The actual real, but hidden and non-obvious meaning in the phrase is (erroneously and fictionally) that women are to blame for men’s lack of sex, so in fact the meaning of the phrase is far from obvious and real, as evidenced by your mistaken belief that it’s a neutral term. It’s a term born in hatred and designed to foster blame and hatred.

You might well believe that you’re using it innocently and I’m good faith, and if so, please realise that you’re very much at risk of being drawn into a hate group.

You are, I’m afraid, deluding yourself if you think that you’re one of the non-racist MAGA fans, just as you’re deluding yourself if you think you’re an incel who isn’t incorrectly blaming other people for your lack of sex or that you aren’t on the road to toxic misogyny with that way of thinking.

There are many things wrong with society, with gender relationships, and with dating expectations, but women and men’s absulote freedom to not have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever they feel isn’t one of them.