That would be nice but very expensive and not so robust as moulded parts without any display/electronic on the surface. I wonder if there is a cheaper way of customizing the button icons than with OLED displays.

Heck, I'd be OK if the automakers went old school with replaceable stickers/panels.

Hm. Should I patent it? Off to USPTO!

I'd say it has more to do with human vision which cover a wider horizontal angle than vertical.

The medium (film) maybe adapted to how we see. Nowadays it might be adapting to how we hold the thing we see through.

I hadn't considered this! It's a good point.

Aspect ratios were surprisingly all over the place in early film. Now I'm wondering what parts of aspect ratios were driven by the actual physical characteristics of film.

It's not only a good point, it's the correct point.

If videos had to match the field of vision, and this was the audience's primary concern, I'd 100% agree! I think it's close to their primary concern when watching something like a nature documentary or a historical drama or playing a video game where you walk around a landscape. Vertical video has convinced me that you can tell some kinds of stories and convey certain kinds of info without using deliberate backgrounds, people standing next to each other talking, and people moving around. In vertical video you see a lot of cutting between two people, people talking about being in an environment that does not match their background, or one person playing multiple people. You don't need to learn pesky blocking or how to act with your body. Things that used to seem static, like giving a lecture while standing still, can seem reasonably dynamic. You can just focus on the human face. It's an option with pros and cons and it will encourage certain kinds of uses

Rather than guess, do some research ;)

Vertical is simply a thing, because phones are generally used in portrait mode.

The traditional aspect ratios were created to suit human vision.

I would recommend New Music Friday podcast from All Songs Considered (NPR). It's great for discovering new album releases.

Turing states a very similar thing in his "Computing Machinery and Intelligence paper" and goes on to form a more interesting question (the Turing test):

"If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another"

If you give a color badge to each person in the world and you have 365 colors to choose from, how accurately would a specific color identify a person?

What is 1-(1/365)?

Should probably involve the population there somewhere?

Sort of.

If I have a population of 1, or <= 365 and uniform dist of birthdays, the probability of a date being a valid identifier is 100%.

If I have a population of 365 with randomly distributed birthdays, then it is going to be the probability of not sharing a birthday with any of them (very low)

Once you can guarantee at least 2 people with each birthday the identifier is simply zero percent effective.

If the CEO is not sure where to donate to 'provide enough for those who have little', then giving to those that 'have much' and having them make the decisions might actually be a good choice.

I never felt too positive about piling up of money for years/decades to donate it later instead of distributing it among the people in the organization now.

Sure, if you believe in an impactful plan that needs lots of money. But even then I could see arguments against it.

Can you tell more about this.

I'd consider most of the things you listed to be inventions/innovations. Discovery, for me, is closely connected to uncovering of a new phenomena or an effect. And invention/innovation would be the use of it for some specific purpose.

Surely the techniques and logic used to empower such inventions and innovation had to be discovered by someone at some point. For every great new invention is their not usually some discovery made sometime prior which ushered it in? For things like smaller and smaller computer chips. I'd say that Moore's Law was discovered, not invented.

Moore's Law really is neither as it's more of an observation (and, arguably, a self-fulfilling prediction). Many inventions (made possible by various discoveries in semiconductor physics and the like) have enabled Moore's Law to more or less continue. But Moore's Law itself is not any sort of natural law.

The warp drive is definitely a brand new effect.

For me, a good way to think about it is to first inquire what is art, what is work of art, and what is the art product. The book "Art as Experience" helped me immensely.

I see art as experience that stands out from a daily experience because of its intensity and refinement. And work of art as the process of creation of the art product.

Usually, context around the art product is an important part of experience. So if we remove the object out of its context (city, creation, people, usage of it if it is a building for example..) and transport it globally to some museum the art is diminished. Sure we can write stuff next to the art product but it is not the same. What you can directly experience is just an observation of the craftsmanship, other things you have to imagine.

So if you were around the folks who are creating algorithms for computer generated art you would experience the end product much more intensely since you would directly experience the process of refinement, context, motivations and so on.

Maybe market it to journalists/writers. Either to novice ones (students) so they get more aware about what good article title might be. Or to the experienced ones so they become more aware how everyone else is making up titles. Analytics from other users could also be interesting for journalists.