Mo

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@SadlyItsBradley Anyone care to explain?

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@woods_lola6914 This is private land, purchased in the 80s, they can call the streets what they like.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@MrDo00 @GBPolitcs That's exactly the question

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@s21bantaiha @ASUS_ZenBlog Samsung did implement it on the fold. It looked just like this, but the reduction in image quality from the camera wasn't worth it, so they removed it from recent models.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@shiro_tya_ppppp @ASUS_ZenBlog It's because the pixel density has to be considerably lower in that area to allow the camera to see in between the rows of pixels, same tech Samsung used to use, they ultimately removed it as the drop in image quality wasn't worth it to them for a totally unbroken screen

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@realjoshbach @SemDayy @johnternus Here, clearly visible, but totally acceptable

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@realjoshbach @SemDayy @johnternus You can go and look at some videos from the hands on at the show, there is. And that's okay! Everyone except the zealots expected there to be, and anyone that buys it will still be very happy with it, I'm sure

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@ToshgoshTosh @NoveliteRogue @geoffkeighley There is a noticeable crease, about the same as the competition, hands on videos are trickling out that shows it in action. But it really isn't a big deal, you stop noticing it pretty fast

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@realjoshbach @SemDayy @johnternus Unfortunately there is a noticeable crease, but it's about on par with the competition, not noticeable in normal use.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@thtsbar @ibraheemch333 @MKBHD What a thoughtful opinion

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@WuWei113 @sama No, you don't have a job because you talk like this.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@scottstts These are mathematicians, that's what they do. If they wanted to advance civilisation they'd be engineers.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@sporadica None at all unfortunately. All it's done is ask "If this thing that we know isn't entirely correct, was entirely correct, would these equations solve it?" And they've come up with "no"

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@adsha44 @sporadica Not true at all, this breakthrough has no impact on the real world

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@PerLib76 @MilesCranmer It's not about physics at all. It's about AI and maths.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@flocksofphysics @MilesCranmer Not really. We've known for years the limits of NS, and when not to use it. All this has done has proven that if air was indeed a true continuum (which it isn't) there are conditions at which the equations do not hold.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@ashtwinproject @LagrangianGod @MilesCranmer We know it falls apart because we know molecules exist. NS assumes they don't. The millennium prize was asking if the PDE itself can break internally under the continuum assumption.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@LagrangianGod @MilesCranmer At that scale you can use NS equations. It's only at the tiny, molecule scale that NS falls apart, we've known physically for years, but this breakthrough has shown it mathematically.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@korv_R @MilesCranmer This isn't a mathematical proof, more of a disproof of the NS equations. It shows us that it's a good approximation that does not provide a global solution.

[Mo @BlueMP6]

@varadkarkhanis @MilesCranmer That's his point (as I interpreted it). At the scales where there might be a singularity, we know that continuum theory doesn't apply. This has just mathematically proven what we've known using particle theory for decades.