peepers

Thank you, as this puts paid to anyone here saying there's no visible difference except to pixel peepers.

It is one thing to know, but it is quite another to see it with your own peepers.

The DNS needs security features that prevent the peepers from reading your DNS traffic.

And even knowing the percentage of peepers in a country doesn’t tell you much about the stability of said country; social factors can affect that rate independent of how likely a collapse is.

But the benefits have been incredible: - I no longer stay up way too late every night pushing pixels past my peepers.

Except fellow pixel-peepers who get off on technical perfectionism.

The (exclusively) peepers are probably just teenagers.

I was wondering if there was some magic -- perhaps making those pages static and rewriting them targeted just at celebrity peepers -- that would help recoup expenses?

>DoH is not about protecting your DNS queries from peepers.

Alright so the article's tl;dr says to not use DoH as it merely reduces the number of peepers to one (which firstly is a good thing and secondly also offers protection against UDP spoofing attacks)...

> That'll scar the peepers Or entertain them.

The built-in content apps (the early days of smart TVs before they turned into a surveillance capitalism hellscape) are dead, and 1080p non-HDR is obsolete for pixel-peepers, but for our limited use, the screen still works just fine.

And as pointed out instgrammers are not "pixel peepers" so a low quality projector image is not going cause complaints.

You’d need more data or tools to determine just how much of the “offending” wavelengths are making it into your peepers.

So, from their perspective, it’s “fair” to upcharge the “spec peepers” and professionals who really need it.

The story of the pilot who saw something with his own peepers has my attention but I don't trust what they've only "seen" on instruments.