As someone doing AR research, I can definitely echo the importance of higher FOV for getting closer to the "holograms." I am currently doing some investigations involving tracked hand-held devices (like smartphones/tablets) with the AR HMD, and I've found that users tend to unnaturally hold the device really far out in an attempt to see any AR content that is placed relative to the tracked object. Hopefully even a modest improvement in FOV can overcome this subconscious tendency and open up a wider range of interactions.
That's interesting; something I never really paid attention too when I was working with an mobile device AR app company. Is this research somehow tied into the relationship between UI and imaging AR head mounted displays or are you focussing on tablet/phone AR?
I too feel FOV is a key attribute, but for me it's all about it being an important "immersion cue". Objects that we don't first (subcontiously) notice in our peripheral vision, we simply don't believe.
This is actually why I think Magic Leap made a smart decision by making their device so 'enclosed' (as opposed to MSHL that is extremely open and unoccluded), which effectively artificially narrows the peripheral vision. So, by simply blocking off the area of a display window through/from which your device cannot generate image content, they improve immersion. Cheating, but who cares, so long as effect is better than without.
>Is this research somehow tied into the relationship between UI and imaging AR head mounted displays or are you focussing on tablet/phone AR?
It's focused on having virtual/AR content that is rendered by an AR HMD like the HoloLens, but which is rigidly anchored to a handheld object. So, for example, having extra windows or panels on a phone that float beyond the rectangle that defines the physical smartphone shape.
>This is actually why I think Magic Leap made a smart decision by making their device so 'enclosed' (as opposed to MSHL that is extremely open and unoccluded), which effectively artificially narrows the peripheral vision.
I think this was an issue that the HoloLens 1 had/has in terms of the plastic "eyeglasses" region -- because it looks like it wraps around the full eye FOV when looking at the headset before putting it on, users are disappointed when they wear it and it's revealed just how (relatively) low the FOV is. Setting proper expectations is important for users.
Far be it from me to fall into the "everything I don't like is a Russian/Chinese covert action" conspiracy theorizing that is increasingly common these days -- but if I were an adversarial state actor, I would definitely look into ways of encouraging these sorts of anti-US-military "employee rebellions" in the tech industry. Geopolitics never rests, and an important asset of any nation is its tech industry, both during wartime itself and also in any long-term leadup to conflict. I wonder if the US government has internally analyzed the question of whether, in an increasingly globalized and politically agitating environment, its companies can be counted on to be supportive and/or loyal in the event of conflict.
As someone who neither resides in the US (or its supposedly adversary countries), nor works at BigTech, I don't think I have any bias here except I hope humanity doesn't end up obliterating itself with nukes.
But your comment is, at best, a fraction of the full picture.
1 No country has ever been as ready to "spread democracy via force" as the US
2 No country has borrowed as much money to run its spendthrift military budget to carry out #1. You combine #1 and #2, and the money lenders are wondering, "Wait, WTF are you doing with all my money?"
3 No country has a tech sector with tentacles that spread as far. That's all fine (for the other countries) if you happen to be, say, neutral and generally non-aggressive Switzerland, but not so if you are a bonafide empire and keep trying to continue being an empire.
4 No country has so many immigrants working in their tech sector. Some of these immigrants are probably wondering "Wait, so I am developing weapons so people I don't know are going to bomb and kill people I actually know?"
5 Last, and certainly not least, "The first casualty of war is truth". A nerd is a nerd because he/she probably knows this very deep in their psyche somewhere. So this nerd ends up in a massive state of cognitive dissonance when asked to develop weapons of war. Its like telling them "Yeah, we won't actually tell you what we might use it for. And you have to just believe any spin we put on the whole issue. Not to mention, we might end up attacking your kith and kin. But its all OK, because WE are the country of DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM".
>> its companies can be counted on to be supportive and/or loyal in the event of conflict.
That's probably a smaller question, as seen by a neutral. A bigger question at this point is, can the USA, which managed to elect Donald Trump, by counted on to be a stable and reliable superpower or should all the other countries already start taking an "every country for itself approach", which is what I think is happening?
no offense, but it doesn't sound like your opinion is very neutral.
I would agree that the USA has it's faults, but unfortunately so do the other superpowers, and just about every other country out there (except those nordics maybe?)
Not that saying "everyone has problems" is meant to dismiss your arguments, rather you should consider if at least some of your list are actually problems of the USA or symptoms of global inequality, or even perhaps beneficial aspects of the USA.
Specific rebuttals:
#1: yes, but that ended in the 80's. Iraq or after isn't about democracy. The causes of USA's direct military intervention is complicated. Simplifying to "spread of democracy" is just about the definition of biased, though I agree the interventions are mostly not justified.
#2: yes but the USA is the police for it's allies neighborhoods, for various, complicated, reasons. Projection of power isn't cheap, and it's not just to burn money.
#3: USA's culture and economic impact are global, and it's spread is organic. I would personally call this net benefit, so curious why you feel it's nefarious.
#4: Why focus on immigrants/usa? This is story of anybody working for any big company anywhere?
#5: it seems like you have a lot of strong feelings going on here....
English is not my first language and maybe I misunderstood you. But #3 is net positive only for USA. Of course, if you live in USA and watch and read only us media, it's self assuring to believe "we do it for greater good". But it's not.
I think you could argue that cultural domination is bad. I was mostly thinking of technological and scientific improvements that came out of the USA: from nuclear to gps to smartphones.
So much software is dual purpose, though. "We need this moving object recognition for, uh, cars. So it knows where a moving person is, so it can avoid them."
This has been a huge part of academic investment by government too. Yes we'll sponsor your PHD in this area because (often without the academics direct knowledge) we have a need in a certain area and we think this might help.
That might be signal reflection calculation (like more precise GPS in a place with tall buildings).
It might be a new kind of harder material (carbon nanotubes/ graphene).
Or perhaps it's a better understanding of a drug / mental health / the mind that has a side-effect of having nefarious applications as well as helpful ones being considered.
Even if the result is that it doesn't work, the armed forces and clandestine services are very interested in the outcomes of research that might fix a piece of their puzzle.
Even further be it from me to fall in to the "everything I don't like and some things I do are a deep state conspiracy," but if I was a covert US agent that wasn't happy to see people turn against helping their government, I would seriously consider stirring up suspicions of foreign influence on public demonstrations. After all, you know, labor strikes are organized by communists.
Personally I suspect the roor cause is loss of moral authority in the United States military and assiciated apparatuses. Between the expense for no "good results, torture, spying on its citizens, going unpunished for no good end people lost faith and are finding supporting it less acceptable. A reputation is built upon being judged for their past actions.
It can be healed from but it takes time. Previously soldiers had a worse reputation with Mai Lai and Kent State. Now if someone is heckled as a baby killer the assumption is they are an abortion doctor and not a soldier.
The argument that The United States’ involvements in World War II were so impactful and influential was only possible because of the faith of it’s citizens negotiated by Eisenhower’s New Deal is not new. And an interesting angle of it involves the position that, even if you conclude the US did not actually exhibit expertise, the fact remains that it’s reputation took the credit anyhow. Any of the above would demand a sovereign citizenry.
It begs the question: are you personally responsible if the code you’ve written has led to the loss of life? Many would seem to think so. Either you accept you have blood on your hands, or you don’t engage in business with an outfit like the US military. Can’t have it both ways.
"Build your own X" has its limits. The payment processors are the ones that will be and are the censors. Enough social-media shrieking and Mastercard and Visa willingly bend to the loudest voices. We don't yet live in a world of ubiquitous/easy crypto, and mailing cash or money orders around is not feasible at scale. Only government regulation will heal the imbalance.
You're correct that there's often a lot of interpretation and historical research that has to be done when looking through such cookbooks. However, they can offer quite an interesting glimpse into another era. Specifically, I'd recommend watching some of the Townsends "18th Century Cooking" YouTube videos [0] which show how some unusual (or familiar!) recipes from colonial America may have been made.
OK. Some people react to external criticism with seething resentment. Others end up finding it a useful source of energy to push themselves into a new state even if they are hating it in the moment. The continued "tough love" approaches in traditionally masculine spaces like military boot camps suggests it works for many.
That’s really the mark of a good coach: being able to identify what’s good for the individuals they’re coaching. “Don’t be a weak little girl!!!” works for some “C’mon 5 more you’re almost there you’re awesome!” works for others.
This is the danger when our lives become increasingly dependent on digital middlemen who are not regulated as utilities, where legislation has not caught up, who can proudly declare themselves "just a private company you have no say" and use nebulous ToS violations to shut people down.
When people violate actual law, we know which specific sentence in the written law was violated. We have a chance to defend ourselves. We have (supposedly) impartial judges and juries to help determine the truth.
Tech companies are building parallel institutions for judgment and execution, but building it for themselves and they have no plans to let their users have any say or transparency. It's a digital version of "rule of men" rather than "rule of law" -- "you're condemned because I, the King, say so."
This will continue until external powers (regulation) force the quasi-digital-fiefdoms to open up. Hemming and hawing about "gee, this is kinda harsh" won't have an effect on them.
>at the whims of a foreign corporation that will stop at nothing if it means 2 cents more on their bottom line, or gets them on the good side of a government entity.
Or if it gets them out of a flash-in-the-pan PR issue fomented by the latest political outrage mob, or a couple 'woke points' to score with their ideological allies.
The tech community had its chance to stand firm and demand openness and liberty of use when it comes to accessing communication services provided by mega-corps. They instead let themselves be seduced by "it's a private company they can do whatever they want go build your own platform" when it was being wielded against less sympathetic targets.
There's consistently a lot of shock and outrage about foreign interference in American elections, however there seems to be no feasible solutions to the problem. If, as people seem to be doing, "election interference" doesn't mean hacked voting machines but 'hacked voters' (exposure to subversive foreign propaganda), then there is no defense against it without going to what we would consider a repressive state. Low-cost social-media memes, groups, and bot-comments are a super-weapon that can be deployed against any government that purports to be 'democratic' in its methods.
At a minimum, to actually combat 'foreign interference in elections,' the US would need to:
- rigorously require anyone paying for political ads on social media to be US citizens,
- require anyone posting comments on US-visible political social media topics to also be US citizens,
- limit the exposure of US citizens to foreign media, both state-sponsored and 'private'
- place additional surveillance or suspicion on first/second-generation immigrants who may be spreading latent ideological memes from foreign governments
In short, a China model rather than a traditionally Western model. In a globalized society with such free flow of information, is it even possible to have a national democracy that doesn't implicitly give the rest of a world voting access through rival-state mechanisms?
The study was exclusively focused on women and a men-vs-women comparative analysis was outside their scope.
Some interesting results:
- While left-leaning female politicians received slightly more abuse than right-leaning female politicians, there is a much stronger and opposite disparity for journalists. Right-leaning female journalists receive more abuse than left-leaning female journalists -- the gap is triple that of the left/right politician gap. Does anyone know what might be the cause?
(as an aside, the mouseover for seeing the exact percentages was really annoying; the percentage for female right-leaning journalists kept getting covered up by the text interpretation).
The text summaries of the data also seem to have slightly non-synonymous interpretations:
>6.57% of all mentions of journalists working for left leaning media groups were problematic or abusive
>Journalists working for right leaning media groups were mentioned in 64% more problematic and abusive tweets than journalists working at left leaning organisations
>Left leaning politicians receive 23% more problematic and abusive mentions that their counterparts in right-leaning parties
>6.18% of all mentions of right leaning politicians were problematic or abusive
It almost sounds like making a distinction between "receiving abusive mentions" and "being mentioned in an abusive tweet."
- Regarding the breakdown of abusive mentions for different races, Latinas seem significantly lower in receiving abusive tweets than the mean (White, Asian, Mixed-race) -- with Black women significantly higher, as reported in the article. Does anyone know if there are social explanations for why that would be the case?
> - While left-leaning female politicians received slightly more abuse than right-leaning female politicians, there is a much stronger and opposite disparity for journalists. Right-leaning female journalists receive more abuse than left-leaning female journalists -- the gap is triple that of the left/right politician gap. Does anyone know what might be the cause?
Perhaps right-leaning people not being as abusive towards left-leaning journalists as left-leaning people being abusive towards right-leaning journalists.
IMHO most right-leaning people are too busy getting on with their lives and being successful to bother with being angry at opposing viewpoints. I could be wrong, though.
Some companies have massive annotated databases of people's faces from different angles, and the ability to do plausible 3D reconstruction of the faces.
Yes, like some DMV's do facial scanning now, and some cities/counties are hooking it up to Amazons Rekognition with cameras mounted in public as well as Palintir software, among others. The FBI tends to use those DB's too. I'll stick to my password, which is actually constitutionally protected, unlike a face, which can be seen from public.
Yep. My employer has several hundred thousand laser scans of real people, spanning every age, gender and ethnicity on the planet, multiple times over. Our FR system can perform 24 million high quality 3D reconstructions per second with two cores at 3.4 GHz. It's pretty amazing.
