Not really. All major browsers just use the value the OS gives them, which is usually rounded to 0.5 or 0.25, which helps keep integer CSS px values an integer number of device pixels. So you could be off as much as 12% if you are on a device that rounded down from 1.12 to 1.0.
Also, even if they didn't, there's no standard for what the correct DPI should be for a device; it theoretically should depend on viewing distance, but it's impractical to constantly change the screen DPI depending on how far away the user's eyes are :)
OP could, however, use a better default than 96 DPI for mobile devices. Most are targeting ~160-ish.
> All major browsers round this to 0.5 or 0.25, which helps keep integer CSS px values an integer number of device pixels.
This is completely false. No browser that I know of does any such thing, nor would it make any sense to do so (nor would it achieve the goal you specify to any meaningful extent).
The closest thing that does happen is that browsers use integer fractions of pixels as their basic layout unit: Firefox and its kin sixtieths, Chrome and its kin sixty-fourths.
But the rest of your answer is correct; and to add a proper citation: “the reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a device pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm’s length” <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#reference-pixel>.
Maybe it's better to say that browsers just take what the OS tells them, rather than actually deriving a device pixel ratio from first principles according to the CSS spec. Because, yeah, there's some weird devices with DPRs like 2.625, though _most_ are multiples of 0.25: https://yesviz.com/viewport/. But note how the same DPR can give a varying CSS PPI, which makes using it useless for this purpose.
1.8 probably would produce a non-integer number of CSS pixels. The browser needs (wants?) to pick a number that divides both the width and height without remainders. For 1920x1080, 1.8 doesn't (works for the height, but not the width) but 1.8̅1̅ does.
Although that has a plausible sound, I don’t think it’s it: the window size is what matters, not the screen size, and you can’t guarantee any sort of divisibility for either anyway. For example, my screen is actually 2560×1440, which is 1706⅔×960 in CSS pixels given the real devicePixelRatio of 1.5. The established rule when you need an integer is, at least on Wayland, to round things down to the nearest integer; I’m not certain about other platforms. Certainly everything that deals in integer pixels sees 1706×960.
Chromium doesn’t exhibit this behaviour; it’s just Firefox on some of its zoom levels. And when I saw 90% being 0.9090909090909091 (90⁄99 instead of 90⁄100) it triggered a memory of observing this five or seven years ago on my Surface Book (3000×2000 @ 2×). I think it is just that they’ve chosen to display different, slightly inaccurate percentage labels.
96dpi seems like a bad default for mobile devices. The CSS spec says the reference pixel (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-values-3/#reference-pixel) should be 96dpi at ~28" viewing distance. But handheld devices are presumed to not be seen that far away and so are built with a DPI closer to 160 (after dividing by the device pixel ratio).
Credit cards give me cashback, worldwide acceptance and peace of mind. The country I live in, Switzerland, has a very widely accepted QR-based payment system... but credit cards (in mobile wallets) are more convenient, safer, faster. The only time I use the QR codes is when a merchant doesn't have a card terminal.
The cashback you are given back is taken from a fraction of the fee levied on merchants by the Payment Processing company they use.
The only thing holding this system together is the lobby (also funded by a part of the aforementioned fee on merchants) by the Payment Processing industry to uphold laws that prohibit more expensive payments for more expensive payment methods, and also the extensive marketing (funded by guess what).
It's an extremely simple yet ingrained system, and the only way to topple it and stop paying hidden costs thinking you're getting an extremely good deal on cashback, is to peel back the curtains and realize it, and make most of the politically-active part of the country's population to do so too.
Credit card isn't more expensive than its main competitor, cash, though. It's just the costs of credit card acceptance are transparently added to each transaction, while the costs of cash are distributed over the whole day's cash transactions and so more opaque.
Merchants have a psychological (and in some countries, legal) barrier to charging more for cash than other payment methods, even though it's the least efficient. Given this, cash-back is the best way to share the efficiency gains with the end user. Maybe if Pix or Twint or debit cards or what-have-you are so efficient, they should also give consumers cashback.
Cashback is just giving part of the profit margin of the fees charged on the transactions to the customer. I would rather that profit margin gets split between the customer (lower prices) and merchant. Also, didn't the EU eliminate cashbacks by precisely price capping transaction fees?
I've seen merchants giving a discount for payment with Pix. And a few stores refuse credit cards and only accept debit and Pix (and cash?).
Also, isn't the main competitor to CC the debit card? And now in some countries instant payments? Is debit that rare in the US?
Although to be honest I'm not 100% sure if it isn't some tax evasion thing.
It could give cashback if it cost 3% of the transaction. But it’s it’s actually much cheaper. For credit cards you have to pay for the brand, the issuer and the acquirer. And each gets a nice cut.
Reducing merchant fees seems like a mistake if you are in competition with both cash (which has high intrinsic merchant costs) and credit cards (which has low intrinsic costs, but which are padded so they're closer to the costs of cash, with consumer cashback coming out of this padding). I'm certainly not going to _choose_ to receive less cashback, as a consumer.
Pix costs are very low and the fee for the merchant as well. They pay less for it and get the money instantly. That’s why many small merchants only accept pix and some big merchants offer discounts for payments using it.
Discounts for Pix vs cash sound cool and a fine alternative to cashback via the payment system. Though I can imagine this might be hard in some countries, where there is a strong pro-cash lobby.
I mean, the cashback is paid for out of the fees you pay for the service. In a world with low capped charges (EU etc) then you'll just pay less, which is equivalent to cashback and much fairer.
So long as the price is the same for cash and card (and Pix?), then you should pick the one that gives you the best kickbacks. I don't think capping CC fees will actually lower prices for consumers much (because merchants prefer round prices for psychological pricing). For evidence, see the fairly uniform pricing of products sold in euros between countries, despite varying vat rates between eurozone countries.
> see the fairly uniform pricing of products sold in euros between countries, despite varying vat rates between eurozone countries.
Huh, not sure I agree with that (the uniform pricing thing). I mean, one should believe that, but it doesn't appear to be true. For example, recently I saw a tablet for 208 euro (converted from GBP) on amazon.co.uk, approx 220 euro from amazon.de and 360 euro from amazon.ie, for the same item.
I was really surprised because I figured electronics would be pretty similarly priced across the EU/UK, but apparently not.
Suspicious transactions are a legitimate use-case for payment processing. If you don't fully trust who you're buying from, the scam preventions, chargebacks, refunds etc. work fine. But buying lunch or small chocolates, cigarretes etc with credit cards is INSANE.
Yes. But credit cards have high costs for the merchant. Thats why they get to give us cashback. It depends on the country, but the cut rate goes from 1% (in europe) to 3% in Brazil.
And the merchant gets the money after a long time. It is possible to advance the payment but the rates are much higher (10%+).
So, i dont think we can even think of credit cards as instant payment. And it has mich higher costs that, in the end, go back to the consumers.
Brazil is actually a pretty rich country. It's just that the wealth is exceptionally highly concentrated at the top. Brazil has enormous resources and potential, but all that potential gets sucked up by the big boys in their club. Although I know what you mean, it's important to distinguish Brazil from a genuinely poor-all-over country where there is not much wealth anywhere. Even in poor or average neighbourhoods in the big cities, you can see a person with nothing and then another person drive by in a BMW.
> Credit cards give me cashback, worldwide acceptance and peace of mind.
That's because you (and everyone else in Switzerland, even those paying cash) is eating a 2-3% merchant fee markup. In the civilised world like the EU, where credit card interchange fees are capped of 0.3%, those cashback benefits (which is, again, your money you've just paid) don't exist.
> worldwide acceptance
For now, at a huge economy-wide cost. That skimmed 2-3% is what Trump is trying to protect.
> peace of mind
That's also country-dependent. In many countries, credit card transactions have no additional protections and chargebacks aren't the magic bullet they are in some.
> more convenient, safer, faster.
Pix is more convenient, safer (much, much safer and lower risk of fraud), and faster than credit cards. Cheaper too.
And let's not forget that cash acceptance costs an order of magnitude more than this anyway; if anything businesses should charge surcharges for accepting cash, not the other way around, and given the social constraint of no surcharges, cashback is a fair mechanism to reward efficient payment methods.
Yeah but Twint is a piece of crap. Maybe Pix or Alipay are faster to use. But I agree, Apple Pay is pretty much perfect in terms of UX for in-store and especially for online payments.
>If I create content like recipes ... previously I had exclusive rights to my created content
Recipes are not protected by copyright law. That's _why_ recipe bloggers have resorted to editorialising recipes, because the editorial content is copyrightable.
Haha, you've exposed that I know absolutely nothing about copyright law! That's a great point, but I think my original point still stands if you swap out my full-of-holes example for a type of content that is copyrightable.
This is also mostly fixable, with signal priority. Except at complex intersections where different roads each have transit lines fighting for priority.
There's a collective action problem, though. One parent taking away their kid's phone is just isolating them from their friends, which might be a net negative. However, all the kids having their phones taken away would be a net positive.
The Indian system is clearly less consistent from an outsider PoV: You use a 3 digit gap for the first comma, then 2-digit gaps (1 crore is 1,00,00,000); the western system is consistently 3-digits (1 million is 1,000,000).
It happened in newspaper jargon for the leading sentence of an article (though they used the spelling "lede" instead), because "lead" was already a metonym for hot type (which was cast out of the metal).
It hasn't happened otherwise presumably because the risk of confusion is normally very low when not in a Pb-filled context.
Most English words are regular, and most commonly used ones too. "the", "be", "are", "why", "can", "might", "life", etc. are all perfectly regular if you understand how to read english orthography (which uses character clusters and can't be read a letter at a time).
Infinite/finite regularly related, too - the reason the pronunciation of the finite cluster changes is due to stress differences (initial in- always takes the stress, and then the following syllable must be destressed). Note that the long vowel at the end comes back in the 4 syllable "infinitum", again due to regular stress rules.
Your examples are more or less regular though. English is a stress-based language, so it's expected that pronunciation might change when you add an extra syllable, if the stress moves (syllable -> syllabic is another example, btw).
> wind, rewind
This one is trivial, no? the "wind" in "rewind" is pronounced the same, with /aj/. The "wind" with /ɪ/ is unrelated.
Also, even if they didn't, there's no standard for what the correct DPI should be for a device; it theoretically should depend on viewing distance, but it's impractical to constantly change the screen DPI depending on how far away the user's eyes are :)
OP could, however, use a better default than 96 DPI for mobile devices. Most are targeting ~160-ish.
reply