nathcun

Maybe my wording wasn't great, I didn't want to say the folding itself is a problem, the problem is that the aspect ratios of the two are dependent on each other, making unusual solutions like you mentioned necessary. Not that that's a bad thing, but it is something that will require some creativity that we don't need to consider normally.

The Lenovo Yoga Book is quite different in the sense that the multi-screens are never really viewed as a single form. One screen is more of an input device, while the other is what we would usually see as a screen. I'm not saying that the foldable phone can't do this, just that it's very different from a "phone that folds out to have a bigger screen for watching media" device that I've seen people expect these foldable phones to be.

I'm not saying "aspect ratios don't work, therefore the whole thing's a bust", just that we should expect that one or other of the devices will be quite a bit different from what we normally see.

I'm considering the assumption that the tablet aspect is primarily for watching TV/films, meaning letterboxing is essentially a bezel.

What exactly aren't you convinced of?

Not saying it's a problem for development. I've just seen people ask why the screens have odd aspect ratios.

I was wrong on the tablets, I was meaning an ideal tablet for watching TV/films which is mostly 16:9 or 18:9.

Tablets typically are 4:3, which would result in a phone being 3:2 which would be 25% shorter on 18:9 phones, and 15% shorter on 16:9 phones, which is a reasonable departure from the norm, and ultimately means neither the phone nor the tablet are well set up for watching films/TV.

I know there isn't a typical size, but the trend has been towards taller phones. The desire to keep to the aspect ratio isn't about conforming to old phones but conforming to the aspect ratio that films/TV shows are in.

I've seen people comment on these articles asking why the aspect ratios were so weird, and why not 18:9 for both? Perhaps, they were just joking, who knows?

Regardless, an 18:18 screen can only show 18:9 content at the same size as an 18:9 screen can.

As I mentioned a 1:1 screen (if you want to watch your content in an assumed 18:9 native content) will at most take up half of the tablet screen. Meaning your content will be shown at exactly the same size as the phone screen, just rotated. Under the assumption that the tablet screen is just for media consumption this gives no benefit.

I'm saying it's irreconcilable that the phone be like phones we know now (18:9, minimum bezels), and the tablet be like tablets we know now (18:9, minimum bezels). If we have either form conform to what we know now, the other must be very different.

I'd be quite happy with it too. The issue is that the tablet side will have the same aspect ratio, which isn't ideal for film/TV.

"Give it a couple iterations, a little trial and error and you'll probably get your aspect ratio or tiny bezels."

Did you read the rest of the post? I'm saying that mathetmatically those two things are completely irreconcilable.

I'm not saying the phone will be bad, just that it is impossible for the both the phone and tablet to conform to the form factor of a typical phone/tablet that is out now.

Our number system is base 10. The choice was arbitrary, I just wanted enough episodes to reduce the noise in the average ratings.

Or if I'd just used R correctly. The code surely isn't best practice in R, just kind of hashed together. I had actually started doing this in Python, but my limited knowledge of Python meant I was resorting to two different libraries to scrape the two data tables.

I didn't assume a causal relationship. In the last line I state that a change in writers may not have caused a decline in quality, but the change in the make-up of the writing team around the team most people agree the show went downhill would lend some credibility to the idea.

What about that article suggested I was attempting to do proper Bayesian statistics? It's an exploratory analysis, I'm just looking at the data.

And where did I claim there was no principled way of doing this analysis?

An interesting thing I came across writing this: the top writers, Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein, were showrunners for seasons 7 and 8, immediately stepping down after as:

    Oakley and Weinstein stood down as showrunners after 
    season eight because they "didn't want to break [the 
    show]." Oakley said: "We always said we'd never do a 
    joke that we'd done before."

Your wording here suggests that the later episodes were simply rated lower because they were later. However, I think your point is that the later episodes got worse ratings for something beyond the writers. Certainly possible. Even if nothing else changed, it must be much more difficult to write a fresh, funny episode when 200+ episodes have already been done. There were also external factors which might have driven a change in the comedy of the show, the beginning of Family Guy, e.g.

Some of the top writers I picked out (Bill Oakley, Josh Weinstein, David X/S Cohen) are involved in it, but I agree it's not great.

I still watch the old episodes on an almost daily basis, so I don't know if that's true for everyone.

You're right, I kind of acknowledge this limitation, and am aware I'm doing many of the writers a massive disservice. But, the data that only showed credited writers, and those credited must have done _something_ to be the ones with their names on it.

While I admit the logic is somewhat tautologous, that's not quite the conclusion I'm drawing. I, first of all, look at the average rating of the writers involved in the show, and then look at how the make-up of the show's writers is substantially different in the early years vs the later years.

> One of those arbitrary costs of budget airlines is paying €50 for having your ticket printed at the airport (Lufthansa). Sometimes you just don't have a printer or the possibility to check in beforehand. Sure, I could 'plan ahead' and buy a cheap printer along the way to the airport and do it myself right then and there and it would be cheaper. I'd then throw away the printer or give it to someone else. How is $60 a reasonable price for airport check-in?

Ryanair allow you to use your phone, you don't need it printed up. You only have to pay if you want to check in at the airport. If everyone checked in online then Ryanair wouldn't need to have any staff at the check-in desk in the airport, if you don't check in in advance then you need to subsidise the costs of paying those staff members. If check in at the airport is free what that really means is that everyone else is subsidising you checking in early.

> Many airlines still offer 'free' food in the plane, some don't and charge large amounts of money for very crappy food.

Again, this amounts to everyone else subsidising your food. The airlines have to pay for it somehow, either they charge you or they increase the ticket prices. I hate airline food, and if I can avoid paying for it at all then great. Most Ryanair flights are <3 hours, you can manage that without eating.

> I can't even bring water from outside the airport past security. Some airlines offer complementary (due to higher ticket prices) drinks, but others ask for €4 for a 0.25ml drink. Planning ahead would mean I end up paying slightly less at the shops at the gate.

The water thing is universal. You can empty your bottle out and many airports have free fountains beyond security to refill.

> I am saying that I'd rather pay more for the tickets and then not be charged for everything along the way. It is much more transparent that way and I don't end up packing a picknick or chasing after hotel owners to print tickets, etc.

Why though? You're saying you'd rather not have the choice to pay for these things. You'd rather get a flight with higher costs just in case you feel like eating on the flight or having a bottle of water. Not only that, but you want everyone else on the flight who doesn't want those things to chip in and pay for your convenience.