Don’t you use a flathead for that?

Uses Too Many Big Words

Contention

How can one be chronologically disappointed? Did you mean “chronically”?

So she wants to go to jail if she wakes up with a headache?

It was obviously sarcasm with that 100ths precision rating.

iDreams (Infinite Dreams) didn’t make the cut? I love their Sky Force games.

O

I’m not criticizing the screens, they are ok and I loved my Pebble Time Steel until the battery swelled and popped off the screen. I’m just saying that calling these e-paper is a deceptive marketing strategy.

From the Verge article:

The first watch that Migicovsky and Core plan to ship is called the Core 2 Duo (not to be confused with the old Intel processor), which Migicovsky says will cost $149 and will ship in July. […] It has the exact same black-and-white e-paper display as the old Pebble 2 (technically a transflective LCD, if you’re curious)

As I mentioned earlier, whether a screen type is considered e-paper is subjective. And in my opinion, reflective LCD isn’t a type of e-paper. You may disagree, but it’s not “categorically” wrong.

Quote is from Wikipedia. You can see it’s the case for both models here:

• Pebble
• Pebble Time

Besides, I own a Pebble Time watch and can tell you, it doesn’t perform like a typical e-paper. It has the bad viewing angles of LCD and screen goes blank when power is lost.

The watch featured a 32-millimetre (1.26 in) 144 × 168 pixel black and white memory LCD using an ultra low-power “transflective LCD”

The problem is that e-paper is a category of displays, and some companies label reflective LCDs as “e-paper”. Which is subjective (and I personally heavily disagree with that categorization, cause then LCD clocks and Gameboys have “e-paper” displays, too).

But in the comment I responded to it was said Pebble has “eink” display, which is categorically wrong, as that is a very specific proprietary technology, which is e-paper in traditional sense, like the ones in Kindles.

IIRC, it has a reflective LCD, not epaper display.

What’s with the egg covering the PS logo?

Worm: *puts on mechanical suit*

It’s definitely not just a couple of seconds, unless you have a very lightweight OS and only 1 or 2 apps to work with. And no matter how little extra time it takes to cold boot the system, there’s still no benefit to doing it that way, so no matter how little that time is, it’s still wasted.

As I mentioned, one is free to use their computer however they wish, but it doesn’t make it not wasteful to shut it down. If grabbing something to eat was part of my daily routine, I’d grab it beforehand, instead of needlessly going back and forth, wake the computer and use it immediately.

Firstly, I normally have way more than two apps open. And secondly, in case of a few apps, I personally still value the couple minutes of my time more than I do 2% of my battery. But to each their own.

I used to have a watercooled PC, I don’t remember it making any sounds while in sleep. Why would the pump run when PC is asleep?

I was mostly talking about stationary computers, but even in case of a laptop (unless it runs Windows which has terrible sleep management) the benefits of starting your work immediately once you open the lid outweighs the cons of losing a couple percent of battery overnight.

But you can’t bring the same argument back to me. Cold booting requires more time and effort. Thus to make that argument, one needs to provide the benefits that compensate for the downsides. Some people provided possible benefits that matter to their specific case, like, PSU makes noise (actually, that was you in a different thread), or they want to save laptop battery, etc. But if we are taking about a modern stationary computer with mains power, there’s practically no benefit to shutting it down, only downsides.

Of course it’s completely valid for somebody to do it out of habit, but they can’t expect to use that as a valid argument for others to do it.