That's what I've always done, grown each business slowly, organically. I've since learned that there are two types of companies that work well - tiny ones that basically provide the owner with a job, and larger ones run by a management team.

    What I did for far too long was deal with payroll, unemployment taxes, health insurance, sick leave, etc for two employees. That was a mistake. I should have chosen to either stick with just me and a part time helper, or make the jump to six or eight employees. That jump requires a leap of faith, some investment and a marketing campaign. Not making that leap meant that the business was dependent on one or two long -term employees who occasionally get sick, leave the company, etc.

Be tiny for a while until you figure out what you're doing. That may mean doing your business and a day job for a little while until the business provides you with a full-time income. Once it pays you $60,000 / year, then decide to either stay at that level or increase revenue by 500% quickly. Especially after the changes in the last six years, being an employer takes a lot of time and effort. Make it worthwhile. Do a POC by working it by yourself first, though.

I was told there would be no math.

You make the mistake of thinking that the whole nutrition business is based on what scientists think.

Every time there is a "nutritional discovery", marketing forces take over, and soon we are consuming vast amounts of oatmeal, completely overdosing on carbohydrates, eliminating eggs, eliminating fat, and consuming so many phytoestrogens than men are growing boobs. Which is just a small portion of the food fad industry, and the people who are convinced that if they only eat the right foods - or better put - eliminate the right foods, they'll live happy, healthy, lives in to their mid 100's.

Go to 8:5 (16:10) ratio. Uses 40 monitors, and you can drive from a single PC, by your own count.

Put the same diagonal size 16:9 and 16:10 monitors side by side and the 16:9 is a few inches shorter. That is a ton of screen real estate.

There's no such thing as a "natural" aspect ratio, because sitting with your eyes glued to a monitor isn't what we evolved to do.

Years of designing software have taught me one thing, which is that interfaces have to suit the task. When I'm writing or reading, I like a vertically oriented monitor. When I'm watching a movie, I like wide aspect ratio monitor. When I'm programming, I like a moderate aspect ratio landscape monitor, but very, very big. Bigger than I'd want to read a book on or watch a movie on.

So every monitor used for every kind of task is necessarily a compromise, but some monitors may be just the thing for a certain task. Maybe there's a task or mix of tasks where an 19" x 19" sqauare is a good compromise, or a single task where it's ideal. They seem to be pitching it at CAD users. I can see that. I've got my bridge drawings in a rectangular area on screen, but I still have another generous rectangular area for property sheets, tool palletes etc. When I'm working on my tower I arrange things into vertical rectangles.

Or this thing could be a nutty idea in search of a use. But there's probably one out there.

DOUS's? I don't believe they exist.

Artificial bars. The requirement is simple, have a computer that thinks like a human.

You don't even know what algorithm the human brain uses. They didn't in the 80s, either. Figure that out before you complain about bars being moved.

Some people use their monitors for doing work and 16:9 displays are awful. 16:10 is where its at.

So, you're telling me the $300 I paid to the Journal of Experimental Onanism to publish my findings was a waste of money?

Damn. I've already printed up my CV and that paper is at the top of my list of publications. I suppose I should have been suspicious when I saw that the editors that were assigned to peer review my paper were Jack Meihoff and Richard Gazinya.

This is from an article linked from Wikipedia:

So, it's helium and air, which probably caused some of the confusion.