At first I read that as an old printer from a school, and thought that was a very weird thing to want, but then I realised you meant a printer that was old school, and it all suddenly made sense to me!

Alright, you win, I’ll never use my phone in portrait ever again, especially not to film my dog in a storm. I’ll make sure I turn that baby right to your preferred orientation and I’ll stop complaining about pointless bars at the side of other people’s portrait content.

If you want, I can go back through my canara roll and delete everything that’s in portrait just in case I’m ever tempted to sell it to a news organisation. I’ll make sure to only ever post landscape content to whatsapp, signal and especially tiktok and instagram, because otherwise some relative, friend or random Internet user might share it in portrait.

You’re right. That’s definitely a better solution than not putting annoying fuzzy bars on portrait content.

And when anyone films in portrait, make sure to punish anyone trying to watch the footage with a similarly criminal portrait orientation, by putting borders round the side of the portrait content to force it to be landscape, thus shrinking the content to roughly a ninth of their screen, unless they switch to the blessed landscape orientation when it will fill a glorious third of the screen. Let no one watch it full size for the creator thereof has sinned against the gods of landscape.

This is the right and proper punishment for content creators who break the landscape law: let no one see this video fullscreen, for they have sinned against landscape. https://ibb.co/x2MQQG2 let the borders of landscape wrath descend and pad, and let fullscreen be disabled for all, for if landscape viewers are denied fullscreen EVERYONE MUST SUFFER.

Oh, or you could just skip the fuzzy bars in portrait mode if you’re feeling more accommodating to phone users.

Yes, and that’s great, it really is, but when the footage you have is portrait, don’t pad it out to force landscape orientation on it irrespective of the orientation of the viewer’s screen, just let portrait content be full size portrait when viewed on a portrait screen. That is the beginning, the middle and the end of my point. It’s all I’m asking for.

But the fuzzy bars on the side make it great?!?

Watching portrait footage that’s been padded out to landscape on a portrait device is even worse!

I’m proposing that the web designer writes a responsive webpage when they are sent a portrait video to include, so that if it’s viewed on a portrait device it fills the width, and when it’s viewed on a landscape device it fills the height. If it’s actually for telly, there’s usually no harm in cropping a bit at the top and bottom and at that point, feel free to put whatever you like down the sides, but there’s no need to throw away the portrait original for the portrait view of the website.

Like I already said, the technology for writing a webpage that looks different depending on the orientation of the device being used to view it is neither complicated nor new. There’s no need to treat every medium the same in 2023.

I never said it’s lower quality. Not once.

No? This you?

we kept everything to a certain standard of quality. Vertical videos are not suitable for anything except a phone.

Totally not lower quality. Definitely not. There’s a full stop and everything. No link whatsoever. My bad.

No one said anything about websites.

Well I think the rest of us are discussing a video on bbc.co.uk, which is a website, and we’re doing it on lemmy.world, which is also a website, and when I complained about people making portrait videos landscape, I suspect most people correctly figured out that I meant on websites, so I really think it’s just you that assumes we’re talking about jeep club.

I am British and I love this.

Why can’t you use it? Because your web designer isn’t designing for the possibility that people use a phone to access the Web, but it’s not 2004 any more and they’re living in the past.

You showed your colours when you assumed that portrait video is of lower quality. It’s only of lower quality if you’ve padded it out and are watching it on a landscape screen!

Technology to detect whether your webpage is being viewed landscape has existed for a long time, and takes very simple calculations indeed or just a splash or two of css to maximise the video size for whatever screen it’s being viewed on. It’s design laziness and wasted bandwidth to put the silly blurry bars or even black bars down the side of the video. But don’t force landscape on everyone. Smart phones aren’t new and they aren’t going away.

I suspect that the majority of people who spend even a tiny bit more than half of their recreational screen time looking at a fixed landscape screen are well over thirty.

Fantastic video, but it winds me up when they add padding to a phone video to make it landscape, as if no one in existence might possibly be viewing their phone-generated content on a phone.

You say that because you commit crimes of indecency against confectionary and you like to think of yourself as immune to radicalisation. Don’t kid yourself. Come back to all that is right and good before it’s too late for you.

It’s symptomatic. Symptomatic of the abandonment of all that is proper and decent. Would our great grandparents have eaten candy like this? Would they have celebrated their rebellious ways so boldly? No, they’d have been ashamed. Ashamed of their wicked rule breaking. Rule breaking just for the sake of it. Rule breaking, not for mercy, not in exceptional circumstances, not out of desperation or having no other options, but role breaking just to show off how little respect they have in their hearts.

So yes, yes, people are eating bad candy so incorrectly that you can TELL society is on the point OF COLLAPSE.

This is indicative of a terrible malaise in education, in parenting, in intergenerational transfer of values, in respect and in good manners. No wonder the far right are on the rise, that Naziism is again celebrated. These edgelords will be the first to join the SS, just to shamelessly show off how wicked they are. Have we learned nothing? Are we so quick to repeat history’s darkest mistakes?

See, this is what’s wrong with society today.

Top troll trolling.

Paint roller

But if prices don’t go up, the profits won’t increase! Why doesn’t anybody think of the poor shareholders, trying to barely eke out an income from their holdings?

True. But the word Monad has done more harm to the accessibility, popularity and reputation of pure functional programming than pretty much anything else.

Yeah, I could have said circle rather than curve of constant normal intersection points, but that word is very commonly understood, so it’s not that same as unnecessarily calling something a Monad. Maybe it’s the equivalent of calling it a 2-manifold instead of a wheel.

Perhaps just ditch the generalisation, then, and just call them Result or Maybe. After all, circle is a short word, but we just call them wheels.

Don’t call it a monad, call it a structured data type or something, that’s what it is! Calling it a monad is like saying that you’re using a curve of constant normal intersection point. Why not just say it’s a wheel?

Yes, it’s mathematically true that you’re having a smooth ride precisely because the normals have a constant intersection point, but it’s also true to say that it’s a wheel and it goes round and isn’t bumpy and doesn’t scrape, and people can get a handle on that.

So yeah, use a Result or Option or Maybe structured data type because it keeps explicit track of whether there’s a value or not, and yeah, you can change or combine them and preserve the tracking, but there’s no point calling it a monad unless you’re trying to make people believe that avoiding the $1bn mistake of allowing/using null requires category theory. It doesn’t, it’s just a structured data type. It’s simpler than an array! Stop calling it a monad.

The pedantic nerd in me wants to compare half of the building with the woman, or just the bit right next to the heart to the bit right next to the cabinet.

https://github.com/jah2488/elm-companies Vendr use it too (didn’t spot them in the list) https://www.vendr.com/

Elm (for frontend). https://elm-lang.org/

Nothing is as easy to refactor, maintain, add new features to, work with after a gap, nothing else is as crashless and rock solid.

No compiler is a fast, friendly, helpful and insightful. Seriously. You don’t wait for the compiler. It’s instant even on huge code bases. And the resulting output outperforms other major frameworks.

Its syntax is weird at first (even stranger than python) and the autoformatter is mad keen on blank lines but after a while it’s just so clear and easy to follow.

You have to let go of your object oriented mindset and stop trying to turn everything into objects and components but everything I hated about maintaining old code evaporated once I did. I used to believe that objects detangled code, I don’t know why I continued to believe that despite the evidence, because apart from pretty small and simple things, OO code gets extremely tangled. Elm is absurdly easy to refractor, so you just do.

It’s genuinely nice to add new features to old code, something I’ve never experienced before in a few decades of programming.

The elm slack is also a very helpful place indeed and you usually get a lot of support pretty quickly.

Adding the link to their front page, I see they call it “A delightful language for reliable web applications” and the first claim is “no runtime exceptions”. I remember thinking that was marketing BS but being intrigued by the bold claim. A few years later and I can honestly say that that accurately describes my experience.

These last few years I’ve rediscovered the joy of coding.