this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
424 points (98.0% liked)
Comic Strips
20955 readers
2793 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sorry printer, your maker company is restricting your dpi artificially until your owner is paying them for the resolution-plus subscription.
The problem with printers isn't their dpi, but that they rarely work at all.
That's mostly just inkjet printers. The ink dries up and clogs the print head if it hasn't been used in the last week or two. Most other types are very reliable.
Haven't found one of those yet. Had problems with all kind of printers sadly. But to be honest I want to get rid of all of them. Rarely need one.
If I may present a counterpoint to you, it's Daniel Rutter's Enough Already With the Megapixels.
(This was published in 2005. Cut Dan some slack over it.)
Even 20 years later the message is still bang on.
Consumers get hung up on some single factor, as if that is a direct and sole metric for 'quality' - and so manufacturers optimise solely for that factor, even at the expense of having to compromise in other places which make actual quality worse.
Dan gives the examples of IQ and of CPU Gigaherts, but examples of this numbers fixation are everywhere.
In bed sheets, 'thread count' is a direct proxy for quality, but in reality the material choice matters a lot more than the thread count, and if the thread count is too high the sleep experience can actually get worse, as the sheets become unbreathable.
It's not solely the consumer's fault either, for sure.
Manufacturers are quite happy to perpetuate and abuse the single metric of quality, because it allows them to create cheaply-manufactured products which nontheless still sound good to consumers, and therefore still sell well, despite being overall inferior.
Now it's nanometers for cpus, as if the manufacturing method matters more than the actual performance, user perception and resources usage.
If nanometer scale were all it's cracked up to be, I'd have a lot fewer exes.
That read like a mix of "enough with pixel density", smaller sensors are actually really small and don't expect a ton out of them, and a clear the need for better marketing units. Unfortunately, consumers gonna consumer.
And they have about as much chance at it as the rest of us - zero.
That was a good one.
Reminds me of an ad for a digital camera way back when they were still new, sometime in the noughts:
How many megapixels are you going to wait for?
20, apparently.