Question time: Does anyone know why we have 16:9 aspect ratio monitors and televisions? The reason is that we had films that were shot in 4:3, usually home videos, and films that were shot in 21:9, usually professional cinema. When they were making televisions, they wanted to go with the aspect ratio that could display 4:3 and 21:9 with the minimum wasted pixels. That aspect ratio is 16:9. If you take 21:9 films and display them on 16:9, you get black bars at the top and bottom, with the horizontal space fully used. If you take 4:3 films, you get black bars on each side, with the vertical space fully used. It's not arbitrary, and actually makes some sense why televisions use 16:9, even though you could argue they should have gone wider because the professional cinema is more important and is a better experience. It makes no fucking sense for monitors and it fucking pisses me off. First, essentially to prove me right then spit in my face, monitors used to come in 16:10 ratio, because everybody recognized that 16:9 was basically idiotic for productivity or even surfing the web, and the extra vertical real estate somewhat made up for that. However, because "muh capitalism," monitor manufacturers were able to get away with manufacturing cheaper 16:9 monitors and selling them as being "muh HD," or whatever, and low info people bought them and not the slightly more expensive, but vastly superior 16:10 monitors. So now everyone is stuck with the shitty totally unproductive monitors. And 4:3 monitors were so much better for doing any real work like coding, or writing an article, or even just browsing a website, because you're not stuck with this claustrophobic, cramped screen. So 16:9 is not tall enough... but it's also magically not wide enough either. Windows has this feature, that is theoretically good, where you can split the screen in two, and work on two things on the same monitor. So if you have a 1920x1080 monitor, you get two 960x1080 windows. Except that 16:9 manages to be so fucking shitty, that everything I work on manages to take up like 60% of the horizontal real estate. So if I split the screen in two then I have to fucking horizontally scroll the shit I'm working on, because now I need like 120% the horizontal space, which is so fucking irritating and time consuming that even if it does save some time, I'm fucking pissed and barely more productive anyway. Coding, writing articles, hell, literally this BANG page itself takes up about 60% of the screen, meaning that the rest is wasted space, and yet I can't fucking do anything with it. So in reality, you'd need an aspect ratio of something like 21:9 anyway, just so that you could easily put two things side by side on the screen and be productive. But even that is rendered somewhat moot, because I have two monitors. One of which is the old faithful 1920x1200, the other is a new 1920x1080. And you know how fucking shitty Windows is? Well there is absolutely no way to split your monitor into two, and have a functioning middle part. Windows won't let you do that. I might not have made that clear, so let me explain. If you break a computer with two monitors into 4 parts, outer left, inner left, inner right, outer right, where each part corresponds to half a monitor, WINDOWS WILL NOT LET YOU PUT ANYTHING IN THE MIDDLE TWO QUADRANTS. I am not making this up, this is a basic feature of any operating system GUI, and yet Windows cries and shits it's pants at the very thought of this. So you can just be a retard and put things on the outer quadrants but then everything else refuses to go into the middle, so you keep switching contexts every fucking time you click it's so fucking bad. THE SOLUTION The Master Race Monitor would be something ultra wide. Take people who have triple monitors set up. Instead of 16:9, they get 48:9. I'd just go with 6:1, and give the goyim a resolution of something like 6,000x1,000. The exact res isn't that important, what's important is all that juicy screen real estate. Now first of all, I have utter contempt for modern video games, and the (((modern video game industry))). But games that were made by us to be legitimate experiences, well holy shit. Imagine playing some awesome racing game on a 6:1 curved monitor that wrapped almost all the way around your peripheral vision? Or some FPS, where you get to play as the good guys during WW2? Fucking sick. I don't even like video games anymore and I'd be pretty pumped for that. But way more importantly for productivity. Imagine an OS that had built in support for something like what Windows already has, with being able to split things up into half the screen. Now imagine that, but instead you can split things up into 1/6ths, OR 1/4rs. That would be amazing. You’d never have the problem of not having enough horizontal space, since you could mix things up how you wanted and you have so much to begin with. You could have massively more things onscreen, because you could theoretically be working on/viewing 6 independent 1,000x1,000 screens all up at the same time. Or 4 independent 1,500x1,000 screen sections. The level of productivity that could be achieved would be just enormous. It causes me physical pain that this does not exist, and will not exist until the NJP, or some other real political party wins election.