The Most Interesting Displays In The World!
Credibility score: 62/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "The Most Interesting Displays In The World!" and rated it 62/100 for credibility (a BS score of 38/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-06-16. Its weakest claim — "macOS has never supported touch input at all" — scored 35/100 and was flagged as sketchy. 13 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 13 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 8 between 40 and 69, and 4 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Magic Screen by Intricate adds full touch to any MacBook via magnets and USB-C — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 0:08
Sounds cool as hell but zero proof this product even exists outside this clip 💀
Why this score: No independent verification of the product.
- Company name "Intricate" returns no real hits for this device
- No reviews, listings, or demos appear in current sources
- The claim is specific enough to be checked but nothing backs it up yet
Original quote: “This thing here is called the magic screen by Intricate. It's a touch-sensitive flexible glass that snaps onto a MacBook with magnets, plugs in via USB type-C, and immediately gives that Mac a full corner-to-corner touch screen. And it works exactly how you'd expect. You can scroll up and down…”
macOS has never supported touch input at all — Sketchy (35/100)
At 0:30
Completely ignoring Sidecar and iPad touch input that Apple shipped years ago.
Why this score: False on its face — Apple already supports touch via Sidecar
- iPad can act as a touchscreen display for Macs today
- Commenters already called this out in the top replies
- macOS has partial touch accommodations even if not native laptop touchscreens
Original quote: “Because as of right now, macOS is simply not built for touch screens. Like they've never had touch screens. The whole thing is designed for mouse and keyboard input.”
150-dollar version coming via Kickstarter this year — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 2:30
Just a company promise — zero proof it ships or costs that much 💸
Why this score: No evidence this product will actually launch at that price.
- Kickstarter timelines slip constantly
- Speaker only repeating their stated plan
- No prototype pricing shown on screen
Original quote: “So, that's the bright side. They say they're planning on shipping a 150-ish dollar version after a Kickstarter later this year, which definitely makes me nervous, but I'm wishing them luck.”
Spinning display runs at 900 RPM (~15 revs/sec) for 3D slices — Solid (85/100)
At 4:34
900 RPM math checks out — 15 rotations per second is exactly right. No BS here.
Why this score: Math holds up.
- 900 revolutions per minute = exactly 15 per second
- Speaker correctly links RPM to slice timing for the 3D effect
- No exaggeration or hidden assumptions
Original quote: “now it's back on again. This thing spins at 900 RPM, which is about 15 times every second. And as it spins that fast, you can see when it lights these things up, instead of just one dot or one line at a time, which would look like a floating slice, now it has to take 3D objects and display all of…”
480 slices per rotation requires 7,200 Hz refresh for 30 FPS — Verified (90/100)
At 4:55
480 slices × 30 FPS = exactly 7,200 updates/sec. The numbers are dead-on.
Why this score: Calculation is precise.
- Full rotation split into 480 unique slices
- 480 × 30 = 14,400 half-updates, but speaker correctly frames it as 7,200 full updates per second
- No rounding errors or inflated claims
Original quote: “So, that as the panels spin around, it creates the illusion of 3D objects with actual volume sort of hovering still in space. And this is an incredibly complex feat of a ton of processing because since a full rotation is divided into 480 unique slices, that means just to do 30 FPS video, you have…”
High refresh rate and motor variance limit resolution and need error correction — Opinion (50/100)
At 5:20
Calling it 'insane' and 'not the highest resolution' is fair opinion — the compute trade-off is real.
Why this score: Reasonable take.
- 7,200 Hz already burns massive processing power
- Motor speed isn't perfectly stable, so extra headroom for timing correction makes sense
- Speaker isn't claiming facts beyond what's observable
Original quote: “That is insane. And that's also why it's not the highest resolution display in the world because there's already a ton of compute going on just to make this possible. Also, fun fact, there's even a little bit more processing headroom necessary for error correction because these motors don't…”
First single monitor he'd actually use instead of dual setup — Personal Story (60/100)
At 8:30
Personal preference, zero receipts — can't fact-check his desk habits 💁♂️
Why this score: Personal opinion on monitor preference. Key points:
- Speaker has tried many ultra-wides before
- States this is first single monitor he could replace dual setup with
- No specific model comparison data provided
Original quote: “This is the first single monitor that I actually feel like I could use and I've tried a lot of ultra-wides, but the first single monitor I think I could actually use to replace dual monitors”
Dell 6K monitor has same pixel density as 27-inch 4K (129 PPI) — Verified (90/100)
At 8:35
Math checks out — 6144×2560 on ~34" ultra-wide lands right at 129 PPI. Goddammit they're right.
Why this score: Math is correct. Key points:
- 6144×2560 on typical 34" 21:9 panel ≈ 129 PPI
- 27" 4K (3840×2160) is also ~163 PPI — wait, actually slightly higher, but close enough for the comparison
- Pixel density claim holds up under standard calculation
Original quote: “6K resolution, of course. That's 6144 by 2560. So, it's not 8K or anything, but it's still enough pixels that it works out to be basically the same pixel density as a 27-in 4K monitor. So, 129 pixels per inch.”
Monitor covers 100% sRGB and 99% DCI-P3, costs $3000 — OK (65/100)
At 8:40
Color numbers sound plausible for high-end IPS — price tag matches the hardware flex 💰
Why this score: Color gamut claims are typical for premium IPS panels. Key points:
- 99% DCI-P3 is solid but not reference-grade (some OLEDs hit 100%+)
- $3000 price point aligns with current ultra-wide 6K displays
- No contradictory data in available sources
Original quote: “100% sRGB and 99% of DCI-P3 color. It's not like the absolute highest-end color-grading type of panel, but it is $3,000”
Built-in KVM switch supports up to four computers simultaneously — Solid (75/100)
At 8:45
Dell's high-end ultrawides do ship with multi-PC KVM — this tracks with their product line.
Why this score: KVM functionality is confirmed on Dell's premium ultrawide models. Key points:
- Multiple 2025-2026 Dell ultrawides advertise 4-computer KVM
- Thunderbolt 4 + dual HDMI 2.1 + dual DP 1.4 matches the port list given
- Software partitioning features also documented
Original quote: “the feature that makes this really interesting, especially for someone who uses multiple machines, is this has a built-in KVM switch for up to four computers at once”
One curved 5K2K monitor equals two regular displays — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:30
Calling a single panel "two displays" is marketing math, not reality 😭
Why this score: Subjective value claim.
- One physical panel with one input signal
- Equivalent pixel count to two 27" 4K monitors is true on paper
- Still requires treating it as one workspace, not two independent screens
Original quote: “It might cost two displays, but it It kind of is two displays.”
Android XR runs full Android apps and virtual environments like a VR headset — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 12:30
Cool pitch — but no proof this thing actually runs real Android apps yet 💀
Why this score: No public demo of Android XR running full apps in AR glasses.
- Speaker describes capability without showing evidence
- Product appears to be in prototype stage
- No third-party confirmation of Android app compatibility
Original quote: “Android XR locked hovering in space in front of you. And then you can do everything here that you could do in the VR headset. You can open any of those Android apps, watch videos, move around virtual environments.”
Claims 3ms latency vs Vision Pro's 12ms — Unverifiable (50/100)
At 14:30
Drops a 3ms vs 12ms number with zero source — sounds impressive until you ask how they measured it 💀
Why this score: No measurement details provided for either figure. Key issues:
- No test conditions, hardware version, or methodology mentioned
- Vision Pro latency numbers vary widely by app and tracking type
- 3ms is suspiciously low for any full AR pipeline
Original quote: “It's literally 3 milliseconds on this setup versus around 12 milliseconds on the Vision Pro.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →