Vanguard's website has always been a mess, to be honest. It's really hard to figure out how to do some basic stuff like transfer money.
I figure their website is so bare bones because it reflects their low cost ETFs. They'd rather have a crappy website and cheap ETF's than a fancy website with slightly higher cost ETFs.
I haven't encountered a "pixel perfect" designer for at least 15 years now, if not more. Virtually every single UX designer I've worked with provides flexible designs that scale with screen size.
One problem with two separate designs is deciding when to show one vs. the other. This gets especially tricky when people share links. Wikipedia, for example, has two different URL's: one for mobile and one for desktop. How often do you get links to the mobile version instead of the other?
And if you keep the URL the same but serve different output depending on the browser, then you get inconsistent behaviour between two different devices.
Nailing the UX for mobile and desktop is actually pretty damn hard.
I remember way, way back in the day the "used" PC parts you'd order on ebay would wind up getting bid so high they'd be sold for more than a brand new "latest and greatest" model.
The homepage needs to be the content. Without doing that you are gonna be dead in the water because only a small fraction of people are going to bother registering just to test the water.
Also look at how the current and past generations of forums grew up. Lots of time it was their site owner linking to the content on whatever site they are on...
> The movement of a lifeless prop goes from "oh wow that was creepy" to "oh that is a piece of plastic with some paint on it". Our ability to discern what things are is pretty strong.
You can really start to see this when watching older movies (say, 30 or 50 years old) in HD. These movies were never intended to be viewed on a 16:9 1080p or 4k screen. A good example is Wizard of Oz (1939) or White Christmas (1954). -- the whole movie just feels like a set. You can clearly see the makeup they are wearing.
Even older shows like Seinfield or Friends can have this kind of feel. These were always intended to be shown in 4:3 480 on some crappy CRT. Not 16:9 at 1080p...
What I find funny is looking at older TV shows that were clearly meant to be shown on old analog 4:3 CRT's but shot in film anyway. Now these shows show up in syndication and all that film got scanned as 16:8 HD. Some examples include Seinfeld, Friends, even Wizard of Oz. Many times it feels like you are watching a play instead of an immersive show. All the props look like props instead of something "real"
Only if you measure the pulse width in terms of seconds and not milliseconds.
What is interesting is the hot plate on my 3d printer uses millisecond PWM, but not my stove. I'm not quite sure what the advantages of either method are?
You are forgetting how much of the heat coming from the gas stove is simply heating the air around the pot instead of heating what is in the pot. The efficiency of gas stoves is pretty crap-tastic. Induction heats only the pot, and thus heats only what is inside.
(setting aside tiny losses from heating the pan, etc...)
The last 1.75 fuckin' years have in part been because of the fact journalists and politicians live on twitter. These dudes think pleasing twitter mobs is more important than actual real life people.
> Banning dissenters and removing comments that don't agree with what the moderators want people to see is an easy way to make it look like everyone is in natural agreement on a topic.
This happens way more than people know, by the way. Some of the moderators on large subreddits are complete dicks to people who go against the grain. Good luck appealing. All you can do is create another account for that subreddit or just never visit it again.