Many thanks! (And long time, no see!

)
OK, at 16:9 that would work out to 105x59, with a diagonal of 120.44, aka 4.74". (And what's a mm under the circumstances, nothing.)
Discounting the button space (splitting the diff on that mm), the diagonal comes out to 112.68, aka 4.44".
I had four reasons for asking - 1) I'm seeing conflicting reports on the diagonal, from 4.65" to 4.7", 2) I was wondering if that was because of how measured, full vs. with buttons, 3) I was curious about the button real estate, and 4) I wanted to compare to 4.3" 16:9 displays.
Mine is qHD, but that has nothing to do with Pythagoras -
E3D @ 16:9 w/ 4.3" -> 2.11" x 3.75" -> Area = 7.90 sq. in.
Aka 53.6mm x 95.25mm
As I've yet to hold one, the numbers expose a pretty interesting difference to me!
I guess as a check to see if I didn't screw up any calculations - if you get a chance to verify my diagonals (either or both), I'd appreciate it. I'd have asked earlier, but never expected this sort of difference. (And if we accept 104 mm and bend the aspect ratio from 16:9, the diagonal becomes 4.7" or 119.4mm, agreeing with some reports I've read.)
And if the numbers line up, then why is Google calling this a 4.65" display (and I don't even want to ask why they're using inches for their UK customers on that one)?
