> 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".
:-)
> 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".
I think those are defensible claims.