Sigh. This shit is frustrating. You don’t get it, do you? How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying.
No one ever with a clear head could assume that display size = diagonal. That works if the aspect ratio is unchanging (nowadays 16:9 TV screens are competing with 16:9 TV screens) and there is no problem doing just that. It works less well with variant aspect ratios, though it still is a sort of reasonable proxy for screen size – but if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else.
Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. (In general I also have no problem with the diagonal being used in advertising. It’s not ideal but I won’t get mad about it. I will get mad about it if someone defends outright lying in ads.
> How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying.
:-)
> display size = diagonal [...] works if the aspect ratio is unchanging
I get that.
> It works less well with variant aspect ratios,
I get that too.
> if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else.
I'm imagining a movie where the cops bust through the door to a suspect's apartment to find the walls completely papered with newspaper and magazine clippings of ads for televisions and computer monitors ... all oriented diagonally.
One detective deadpans to the other "Well, I think we've found our killer".
> Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked.
I only claimed that the document contained "an interesting summary of the US Federal Trade Commission 'Picture Tube Rule' (from 1966)" and "discussion of the merits of horizontal vs. diagonal measurements".
No one ever with a clear head could assume that display size = diagonal. That works if the aspect ratio is unchanging (nowadays 16:9 TV screens are competing with 16:9 TV screens) and there is no problem doing just that. It works less well with variant aspect ratios, though it still is a sort of reasonable proxy for screen size – but if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else.
Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. (In general I also have no problem with the diagonal being used in advertising. It’s not ideal but I won’t get mad about it. I will get mad about it if someone defends outright lying in ads.