• TouchMacaque@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    My favorite apple update so far is the Honeycrisp, deliciously sweet and doesn’t turn brown within 2 minutes. Perfect for turning into a pipe and smoking meth out of and then turning into a candy apple once done. I like to keep all the candy apples and give them out to the elves on Christmas Eve as a thank you for helping Santa fulfill the Christian prophecy of toy socialism for children.

  • balsoft@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    I have never bought and will never buy an apple thing (because it’s a super-enshittified walled garden), but honestly I’m just fine with 60Hz. My phone supports 120Hz and I have switched it back to 60Hz because it gives me a couple extra hours of battery. I can tell the difference but it doesn’t bother me one bit. I’d even be OK with 30Hz if it was an option and had a significant battery life advantage.

    Maybe having all the animations in the OS and apps turned off helps keep it not noticeable.

    Whatever is the standard going forward, I hope that there’s always an option to cut back the refresh rate in exchange for battery life, either at the time of purchase or in the settings.

      • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I mean, it’s still true, but everyone who cited it didn’t understand what it was saying. 24 is the minimum where your brain easily puts the motion together and it actually feels like motion. It’s also roughly near where your brain can still process each frame individually. Think the film blotches. Too much faster, and most people wouldn’t see a blip of a blotch and go, “oh a film blotch”, though they might still see it and go, “huh what was that?” up to some pretty significant framerates.

        Though that’s because your eyes don’t see in frames. They’re always receiving info. That’s why even non-framerate related things improve visual smoothness, like how some monitors/technologies (sorry I forgot which ones specify it!) will flash the backlight for the frame instead of keeping it on. Then your eyes don’t get all the muddy colored photons from when the screen was actively changing pixels. It can massively reduce artifacts and makes 120hz feel like 240hz, even though at those speeds, you cannot “see” each frame.

        TL;DR: It’s the Avatar kind of “see”, not the literal kind of “see”.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Hum… The minimum to make it feel like motion is something closer to 15 Hz.

          I have no idea where people pulled the 24 Hz number from, but 60 Hz is clearly enough for everybody. Anyway, if you go inserting random noise you can disrupt the people’s perception at any frequency, the noise just needs enough total energy.

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              VR has a lag problem, not a frame rate problem.

              Basically every argument against low frame rate displays you can find have the form of “we linked responsibility to the display frame rate and now we have a lag problem! low frame rates are the Devil!”