From what I understand, the main goal is to fix the problem that non-native (1:1 pixel mapping) resolutions and scaling look worse than native. This is a problem when you ship high-dpi displays that need UI scaling in order for things to be readable. Apple's solution was to render everything at a higher, non-native resolution so that images were always downscaled to fit the display.

So to oversimplify, Windows can have a problem where if you are running 1.5X scaling so text is big enough, you can't fit 4K of native pixels on a 4K display so videos are blurry. If instead you were rendering a scaled image to a 6K framebuffer and then downscaling to 4K, there would be minimal loss of resolution.

I do not know who was the moron that first used scaling in conjunction with displays having a higher resolution, but this is a non-solution that should have never been used anywhere.

Already more than 35 years ago the correct solution was used. For text and for graphics, the sizes must be specified only in length units, e.g. in typographic points or millimeters or inches, e.g. by configuring a 12-point font for a document or for an UI element. Then the rasterizer for fonts and for graphics renders correctly everything at a visual size that is independent of the display resolution, so it is completely irrelevant whether a display is HiDPI or not.

To combat the effect of rounding to an integer number of pixels, besides anti-aliasing methods, the TTF/OTF fonts have always included methods of hinting that can produce pixel-perfect characters at low screen resolutions, if that is desired (if the font designer does the tedious work required to implement this). Thus there never exists any reason for using scaling with fonts.

For things like icons, the right manner has unfortunately been less standardized, but it should have been equally easy to always have a vector variant of the icons that can be used at arbitrary display resolutions, supplemented by a set of pre-rendered bitmap versions of the icons, suitable for low screen resolutions.

I am always astonished by the frequent discussions about problems caused by "scaling" on HiDPI displays in other operating systems, because I have been using only HiDPI displays for more than a dozen years and I had no problems with them while using typefaces that are beautifully rendered at high resolution, because I use X11 with XFCE, where there is no scaling, I just set the true DPI value of the monitors and everything works fine.

> Then the rasterizer for fonts and for graphics renders correctly everything at a visual size that is independent of the display resolution, so it is completely irrelevant whether a display is HiDPI or not.

Well that sounds great in theory, but then you'll get only one button per screen on your laptop and maybe two on your desktop. More likely one and a half.

> From what I understand, the main goal is to fix the problem that non-native (1:1 pixel mapping) resolutions and scaling look worse than native.

That would be my instinct as well, but the author seems to be delibarately doing the exact opposite. Trying to force a 2x HiDPI and then downscaling to native display resolution whereas he could have just done a 1:1 LoDPI rendering. What you get in the end is some equivalent of hack/brute-force smoothing/antialiasing of what was rendered in the downsample.

The author said that the problem is that Apple has introduced a size limit for the display (3360x1890) that is lower than the size of the actual display, which is a standard 4k display (3840x2160).

So 1:1 rendering can cover only a part of the screen, while the remainder remains unused.

If the maximum size limit is used but applied to the entire screen, it does not match the native resolution so interpolation is used to convert between images with different resolutions, blurring the on-screen image.

All the attempts were done with the hope that there is some way to convince the system to somehow use the greater native image size instead of the smaller size forced by the limits.

Nope, you completely misread the post. All Mac’s including M4s and M5s can run at a 1:1 4K resolution all day long filling the screen completely. That’s not what the OP wanted though, they wanted to render at 8k (roughly 7680 px by 4320 px), then downsample that by 2x in each direction to map to the 4K display. Supposedly to make things “look better” than rendering at the native resolution but it sounds insane to me.

That does not seem to be the case for my M4 Mac mini in native "low-DPI" mode with a 4K display, so I think the problem only appears in HiDPI (7680x4320 framebuffer downscaled back to 3840x2160 only). The author seems to be confirming the max intermediate framebuffer is 6720 pixels wide.

It's just like how we learned survival and life skills by playing Oregon Trail back in the day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_jamming: “GNSS jamming, including GPS jamming, is an act of overwhelming global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) receivers with powerful radio signals that drown out the signals from the GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, or Galileo satellite constellations“

For a high up-front price, nuclear plants give us an extremely large amount of consistent, emissions-free power that can also provide frequency stability to the grid. It's also very energy-dense in terms of Gigawatts per acre. Spent fuel is a largely solved problem, we should reprocess it into new fuel and place the residue into long-term geological storage. Modern nuclear reactors also do online refueling so they aren't shutting down to swap the fuel out.

That said, it's entirely possible to make an argument that the combination of wind, solar, battery energy storage, and kinetic (flywheel?) energy storage can solve the above needs for less money over the long term than nuclear. They can be built more incrementally and in smaller chunks, but there's also a certain value in having huge amounts of energy that can be sited basically anywhere. A big challenge with nuclear is that every time someone costs out a plant, by the time they can gather money solar and wind have gotten cheaper faster than expected.

Overall, I'd like to see a diversity of power sources. I think we should try building some big modern nuclear plants, convert some combustion plants with small modular reactors, subsidize solar and wind preferentially in areas where it makes the most sense, and fund hydro projects where it won't impact the environment.

It usually contains significant amounts of milk protein, which contribute to flavor but spoil about as quickly as milk does. Washing the butter thoroughly until well after the water is clear will improve storage time, as will salting the butter and thoroughly drying it.

Doesn't that remove the very milk protein that makes it taste better?

Yes, it's a balance between flavor and storage time. If you plan to use it immediately, unwashed butter is best.

But milk does not spoil in 3 days. Why would the butter?

Natural, organic milk does. What you are probably used to is pasteurized, and treated with short bursts of heat. Since at least 20 years, for almost anything milky which you can find in the refrigerated parts of stores. I'm not talking about the stuff which doesn't need to be cooled, until opened, that's heated even longer, and pasteurized harder.

What? Raw milk doesn't expire in 3 days either. More like 2 weeks. And butter unlike cheese has no problem being made from pastueurized milk, so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up.

I've brought that up in response to milk doesn't go bad that fast. Which is against my experience. Maybe I should have that defined more precise?

Under which storage conditions? Refrigerated? Check. Closed container? Check. Climate? Any time of the year, central Europe. Check. Any time of the year somewhere in the Rockies, on the 'Western Slope', at 2600m altitude. Check. After 3 to 4 days it begins to smell and taste different. After which I won't touch/consume it anymore.

I'd be really interested in the stuff lasting 2 weeks, and the conditions under which that's possible?

edit: Again, not that highly pasteurized, homogenized, otherwise treated stuff, but fresh from the cows udder (let's call this really raw milk, which isn't on shelves anywhere, AFAIK), or only the slightest treatmeant, like 'fully organic/bio', which nowadays has a refrigerated shelf life of something like 2 weeks, there aren't any other options anymore. It's all treated. And that stuff still goes bad after opening in a few days.

When proper raw milk starts to go bad, you can keep it at room temperature for a day or so and get something similar to yoghurt. It was done all the time when I was little. I grew up on a farm; the milk came from another farm in the village by the time I had been born.

That may be the case, but isn't what I meant to say, which was just the (refrigerated) shelf-live of the stuff for drinking, and preparation of other stuff, assuming drinkability of it.

Secondary usage of it for other stuff is another matter.

All I know is that I used to buy raw milk from a local farm and it lasted about 2 weeks in the fridge until it tasted bad. Google suggests it lasts 1-2 weeks. I keep my fridge colder than the recommended settings.

The point of a 90% marginal rate isn't to increase tax revenue, it's to discourage high incomes that are economically and socially harmful. If you don't believe that's a problem then policies to address it won't seem logical.

Is someone earning $1.1M more economically or socially harmful than someone earning $980,000?

Even if it is, and even if your point is true, that's not what the GP said. They said taxing rich people a higher percentage than poor people is "more efficient" (whatever that means in this context) and a "[more] fair system," and immediately followed it up with the 90% anachronism.

This is just an Amazon site issue, lots of things are broken right now. This problem specifically appears to be caused by the site not being able to determine your location to ship to.

Why should that matter for anything but the shipping price, which shouldn't even be needed on the product page?

Exactly. The usual pattern is to calculate shipping "during" the checkout phase, not before. i/f a customer demands to know it earlier, the site can always ask for shipping details separately and show the final price on the same product details page.

Tariffs?

Sounds more like Paypal doesn't care to work around the fact that Gmail doesn't understand how e-mail addresses work.

How do we build a society that continues to function while people like this blog writer exist? The reality is that some people will always be 10/10 upset about something, no matter how unreasonable it is. We have a society that's the safest it's ever been but people want to burn it all down because they smelled a cannabis flower.

No one sane is afraid of living the ideal retired life. They are afraid of not being able to afford to live. If we were actually talking about replacing the current system of "work if you want to live" with AI-funded universal basic income, I don't think as many people would be complaining.