What makes you say that? Why should wider than 16:9 necessarily be "better" for our eyes?

I thought that 16:9 was chosen as the widescreen standard (partially) because it was close to our "natural" viewing range.

Movies are almost always released on DVD/Blu-ray at the same aspect ratio they were in at the cinema.

Yeah, huge difference that.

Is it a gradual increase in awfulness from 0 to 1 between 16:9 and 16:10, or does it jump up when it gets to something like 16:9.375?

In reverse of what? I didn't see anything in any of the articles or the summary about life starting out in these harsh environments.

That might have been the case on Earth, but there may not be any less harsh environments on Europa.

Ignore TFA, because TFA is an idiot. They are, in fact, filled with helium.

Bond: Are these pictures live?
M: Unlike the American government, we prefer not to get our bad news from CNN.

Yes. That's how money works.

It's no less weird that we have rules like this than it is to agree that little bits of paper are worth anything at all in the first place.

Woah, calm down. No-one said "things that change colour" were new.

I'm sure you could have found a nicer way of putting that.

People should clean it out after they've used it.

It's the part of the brain that spots typos.

Or maybes not.

It all sounds fairly standard, as these things go.What has earned it the "machine-learning" distinction?

It's a completely new definition of the word "variant."

Which, if any, particular Disney princesses do you rate as "mindless bimbos"?

Not that this is a diamond - the paper doesn't use the word, apparently - but doesn't that depend how you define "thread"? I don't see anything in the summary about the size of these things, so what if they're 100 atoms thick? At what thickness could they no longer be diamond?

Sounds a bit like... well, like practically all other AV software, doesn't it?