My child moved to front facing at around 2 or maybe 2.5 at the oldest (had to go back and lock at old pictures to confirm, she’s 12 now). Parents who obsess over things like keeping their kid rear facing until 5 or in a booster seat until 12 are just neurotic, IMHO. They’re probably the same ones who won’t let them ride their bikes around the neighborhood unsupervised or walk/ride the bus to or from school.

My wife's argument to keep them rear-facing as long as possible is that it's closer to laying down and it helps them sleep.

Ehhhhh, what's your problem with booster seats? Those are just to get the shoulders into the design zone as needed for the typical 3-point seat belt.

It's based on size (shoulder height measured in sitting position) not age.

I think some 5-point seat belts allow a much wider design zone so won't need boosters by the time the children outgrow the front-facing bucket seat.

Kids want to get out of them into adult seats as soon as they can. Actual comfort not relevant.

With 6 kids, I have not really had this issue.

Nope, you completely misread the post. All Mac’s including M4s and M5s can run at a 1:1 4K resolution all day long filling the screen completely. That’s not what the OP wanted though, they wanted to render at 8k (roughly 7680 px by 4320 px), then downsample that by 2x in each direction to map to the 4K display. Supposedly to make things “look better” than rendering at the native resolution but it sounds insane to me.

Those numbers of 1470x956 are “points” or “looks like” values, not the size of the frame buffer. The frame buffer for “looks like 1470x956” is exactly 2x that, or 2940x1912. On a 2560x1664 display, that’s a 1.148x scale factor. Again, nowhere near 2x, even on the “more space” setting.

If you’re counting by the framebuffer than the only 2x is the hidpi-forced-into-lowdown like the link suggest. The ratios I’m referring to is the UI scaling against the physical display pixel dimensions.

Apple basically settles into 220 dpi physical displays (250 moc MacBook Pro), rendering UI at a 2x scale as a default, except for MacBook Airs.

Nope, no windows laptop will render to an 8K framebuffer then downsample that by 2x in each direction to display it at 4K. That’s what the OP is complaining that MacOS won’t let him do.

I don’t know why this was downvoted, I agree that this is a highly unusual configuration. Why render to a frame buffer with 2x the pixels in each direction va the actual display, only to then just scale the whole thing down by 2x in each direction?

Because Apple no longer implements subpixel rendering for fonts?

Supersampling the entire framebuffer is a bad way to anti-alias fonts. Especially since your font rendering is almost certainly doing grayscale anti-aliasing already, which is going to look better than 2x supersampling alone. And supersampling will not do subpixel rendering.

Because it's a decent way to get oversampling.

Similarly Apple doesn't manufacture any of its own computers or iPhones (it's all contract manufacturers like FoxConn) but it would clearly be wrong to say "Apple doesn't make computers! Foxconn does!"

I guess not enough people bought the shirt: https://cottonbureau.com/p/4RUVDA/shirt/mac-pro-believe-dark...

Is it strange that only now do I want the shirt?

I think we're all there with you :)

They better do another run.

Mac Pro... We Believed

Or too many people bought the shirt instead of a Mac Pro.

The shirt was a bit cheaper. And probably a bit faster processing, too.

Just use any TV but don't log into your WiFi or connect an Ethernet cable. It sounds like that won't work with these Vizio TVs, but they're likely junk anyway. This is what I do with my Sony and LG TVs in my house and they work fine as dumb displays attached to my AppleTV box.

They didn’t need to, it by playing it and slapping Intel Insude stickers on the computer, they got a substantial marketing fee/kickback per unit sold.

Plurality, not majority. (Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates).

"Both sides"

Both candidates weren't equally bad. That is always the situation and you must choose the least worse or best candidate.

With Trump getting a little bit less than half the vote and a 65% turnout, "did not vote" was the plurality.

Which is functionally a vote for the status quo. Someone who can't bother to vote isn't going to bother e.g. protesting or otherwise affirming their rights.

Or defeatism. Discouragement campaigns go a long way: “both sides are bad so don’t vote!”

So, in this case, "plurality" means "third place".

Not voting is a choice and the same as voting for the winner

1.They weren't equally bad.

2. Not voting still results in one being elected. This isn't the same as being offered two foods you don't like and declining to eat either.

3. The judgment on the quality of the candidates is likely mostly based on misinformation and manipulation by others.