• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 30th, 2024
  • SteveGoob@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Think about what you're missingEnglish
    8·
    3 days ago

    I’m not gonna do the maths

    Let me help you out there, since I need something to help me procrastinate anyways lol

    being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides.

    I was curious to find out what this came out to as well. Turns out though, on a 16:9 screen, scaling a full 1.43:1 frame to fit only results in side bars that each take up less than 10% of the image, (less than what I was suspecting to be honest).

    While a ~20% size reduction isn’t ideal, so is watching a movie that was composed for a different aspect ratio. IMHO, people should have the choice to watch in whatever way best appeals to their needs. We used to do this on DVDs where you could opt for either the widescreen or fullscreen version of the movie, so there’s definitely precedent for it.

    Unfortunately, the option for the 1.43 version of many of these movies can’t be found outside of their IMAX run in theaters. (At least not officially…)

  • SteveGoob@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•MIT Study Finds Gas Cars Aren't Secretly Better For The Planet Than EVs, Despite What Everyone On Facebook SaysEnglish
    7·
    1 month ago

    Maybe cause its a separate issue? Look, yes it is costly to extract the resources for a battery, but once we have it, we have it for good. Batteries are incredibly recyclable at this point (90%+ recoverable, conservatively), and a new battery can be almost entirely created using previous batteries.

    This is in comparison to fossil fuels, which you get to burn exactly once, after which point you have to go extract more. The environmental costs of extracting oil (not even burning it) are well documented.

    Where a ICE car requires ongoing environmental devastation, an electric one does not inherently require it. As more of the materials for batteries enters circulation, there’s less need to go extract more, and as grids transition from fossil fuels to renewables the climate impact of charging can be lessened as well.

    Of course this isn’t to say that an electric car is the climate endgame. More walkable places, better public transit, better regulation of corporate polluters, etc. are the real meat and potatoes. But saying that EVs are just as bad as ICE cars is just not true.

  • SteveGoob@lemmy.worldtoShowerthoughts@lemmy.world•Seems like safety won't be an issue in the future with self driving cars, because they will all be standing still in a traffic when we all use themEnglish
    5·
    2 months ago

    This is simply not true on its face.

    Unlike the thought expirement you’re running in your head, the real world does not have the luxury of avoiding the possibilities of sudden mechanical failure, a soccer ball being kicked into the road, or unsecured debris falling out of the bed of a truck. These are privately owned and maintained vehicles after all, under many more engineering constraints and usage pressures than just achieving maximum reliablilty in all conditions.

    These things require some degree of margin for error. In general, any car should be able to fully stop before entering the space currently occupied by the car in front of it in order to account for unexpected disturbances. However, as car speeds increase, so do the tolerances required to maintain that safe margin, exponentially in fact.

    Removing the human from the driver seat doesn’t mean we get to start running bumper to bumper at 70mph; at best it means that cars can get away with slightly smaller follow distances than humans need to account for their comparably slow reaction times.

    If you instead believe that we should exert enough control over self driving cars such that we could actually realistically prevent catastrophe while running high speed bumper to bumper traffic, then I have great news for you! We already have that, and it’s called a train.