The perspective shared here seems to be very focused on fundamental difficulties with AR passthrough devices:
- lag is lower than other devices, perhaps low in absolute terms, but is it low enough? Perhaps not for all use-cases
- there are difficulties aligning virtual images (this part is very speculative as to how it relates to Apple’s headset design)
- difficulties tracking saccades - not sure under what use-cases this would show up as a problem, this hasn’t been mentioned in reviewers’ first impressions
- safety problems with obstruction of peripheral vision when moving around
Pretty interesting, but I think it reflects well on Apple that these are the class of problems being discussed. None of these things sound like absolute deal-breakers for a Gen1 device.
Will it be useful though? It doesn’t do games or “presence”, or indeed seem very focussed on any uniquely AR/VR experiences right now. It’s not as good a monitor as a proper monitor (this analysis of VAC and resolution is pretty convincing). But it is portable. Maybe that in itself is enough?
I feel like this article, like every other article about facebook, is based on a misunderstanding of what it is and how it should be used. It seems to me that everything on facebook should be to some extent a facade, an idealised version of whats actually going on. Its a really nice way to keep in some sort of contact with people that you've fallen out of touch with or people who you were never that close with to start (but they post interesting things). This is where the primary value of facebook is (for me at least).
The point is, information on facebook is pseudo-public, not private and hopefully not too personal. Use it like this, and it don't think theres any problem. There are plenty of other options for more private or personal communications so its not like they have any monopoly power in this area. So, regardless of the dubiousness of Mark Zuckerberg's vision for open communications, i think the problems written about in this article reduce to a lot of hyperbole.
There seems to be some recurring popular methods for habit formation and many diffent apps. Each product has its own branding and different twist but the most common themes seem to be (1)"not breaking the chain" (2) precommitments/accountability/public shaming (3)positive feedback of some sort - positive messages or gamification.
This is not a bad set of methods - there is some (varying) evidence to suggest that each of these is effective in improving habit adherence. However, there are loads more facts about habits that don't necessarily fit into this paradigm so neatly:
- Automaticity does not start to level of for a routine until at least a minimum of 20 days for quite a simple task, and it can be many times longer for more effortful tasks (like doing a daily workout). Average was 60 days but with a very high variance (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.674/abstract... )
- A single failed repetition "breaking the chain" does not have any effect on the development of automaticity of the behaviour, only repeated failures tend have a negative effect
- It has been suggested that it is much more difficult to try to build multiple habits in parallel rather than serially (although I cannot quite find an authoritative source just now)
- Habits have a structure: Cue -> Routine -> Reward. It is useful to understand the conditions and motivation for a routine before trying to replace it (substitution approach)
- Furthermore, if trying to establish a new habit to reach a goal you might find that there is no intrinsic reward in the routine. It will be very difficult to keep up the routine like that, and it may often be better to look for a different way to achieve the same goal
- Habit formation can in some cases be thought of as a rewiring of the instinctive valuation system. For example a resolution to eat healthily might be helped more by giving yourself more exposure to delicious meals consisting of mainly vegetables, than by a purely willpower-oriented method
For these reasons - I tend now to think "less is more".It should be more about focusing on one or two correct habits and continually reevaluating them than to rely on a plethora of different external motivators to get you to do a dozen different things every day
Interesting and quite dense post - I had some trouble with the terminology so, for the other five people reading this.. CHO = carbon hydrogen oxygen (ie carbohydrates), N = nitrogen (ie proteins & purines)? This was hard to figure out from google alone but seems to make sense..
Also, PUFA = Polyunsaturated Faty Acids, EFA = Essential Fatty Acids. n3/n6 are more commonly (less precisely?) known as omega 3/omega 6 fatty acids.
From my personal, anecdotal experience the first intervention has been effective (and this seems to accord with the received recommendations wrt better health outcomes for those eating more vegetables and fish). But how clear are we on the outcomes of these simple and broadly applicable interventions have been made clear and concrete so far? The first goal for the science should surely be to end the debate on the proliferation "diseases of civilisation" which, to my understanding, we should be able to do by proving a difference in outcomes for these interventions and correlating them to the dietary shifts of the last 30 years
The thing we don't always recognize is, there are constraints either way. Part of the process or designing or solving any problem is to realize what the constraints are - you're unlikely to fulfill any constraints you're not sure about! By focusing on what the constraints should be from the start, you have a clear idea of what problem you're trying to solve
Interesting article, but as it mentions, this is the latest in a series of breakthroughs in cancer treatment. What is missing for me in there is any idea of the number of people that this could affect.
This would put the date at which cancer is "cured" at somewhere in the 2090s. So, are we talking about continuing this trend or surpassing it? How much of a step forward is this and is it likely to be applied trivially to other forms of cancer?
This post highlights something that can be a problem with the contracting of workers. Namely, that Albert will be more in demand than Zip, despite having built an inferior system. The failure of the business, in real life, is probably not attributable to him - there are many other variables that one could point the finger at (low demand, location, infrastructure, sourcing prices, etc..). And, the manager will often not understand what truly constitutes a "best-practice", maintainable solution. So, by default, he probably ends up being paid more, and is seen to be more important and accomplished as well.
So, where is the incentive for the handyman to act like Albert? And how do you identify these people?
This makes sense, no? With less knowledge about the Ukraine and hence less information about the ties and affinity parts of its population have to Russia, the more aggressive Russia seems. Without that knowledge, you just have to take the prior assumption that Ukraine is just like any other country, no specific link to Russia - and given that, the breach of sovereignty seems more egregious than it is in this specific situation.
The combined efficiency of an electric motor + fossil fuel power plant is still much greater than in a conventional internal combustion engine and therefore the environmental impact from the car is much reduced regardless of the fuel source.
A secondary factor - driving a car like a Tesla communicates an image of environmental responsibility. Even if the government and energy companies aren't supporting renewable fuels, you are. When there is a wind turbine on every corner, and a solar panel on every roof, you will be ready with your Tesla. You're a good citizen, and a forward-thinker...
This is really awesome, and sounds like a great thing for people with diabetes (if the accuracy issues are solved).
Further down the line, technologies like this could be a great thing for the rest of us too. We all experience peaks and troughs in our blood glucose and in those troughs we often feel tired, without really knowing why. It would be great to be able to have continuous feedback like "your blood glucose spiked and now is low after you drank that bottle of lemonade an hour ago". Something like this would really help people to make better decisions and would be a great boon for general public health.
Yeah, fair point. My reasoning was that introverted people, being more introspective, will just have seen less reactions and so be generally less able to interpret them. But, this could be balanced by other traits - for example, greater stimulus sensitivity might mean introspective people place more importance on people's reactions to them
"The reaction, then, had nothing to do with hipsters. It was a hatred of people that need to stand out for standing-out's sake."
Isn't this close to the most common understanding of the word "hipster"? People that are middle-class, want to stand out, and also come off as a bit arty.
So, what do you think is the prior probability of being a disgusting reprehensible goblin? And what is the difference in likelihood of poor fashion decisions between goblins and non-goblins? Seems like would be interesting to actually try and find out which personality traits correspond most with poor fashion decisions (presumably introversion would be a given?)
Well, the problem is, that's different to real dice. And subtlely different to the expectation of how it should work. If you throw a die, you could, with enough fine motor control, throw to get the number you desired. Or, in roulette, you could pick the right number the ball will land in by observing the speed with which the ball is spinning. In theory. Is there a practical difference? No. But, it still feels wrong that the game would work in a way that completely ignores the action of the player.
You make a good point, but perhaps its not so black-and-white as that. If the OP has no real relationship with more senior management, then it is indeed a risky move to take it there. But we don't have very much information to say what the relationships are. It may very well be possible to bring this up intially in a non-accusatory, informal sort of way.
And, just in case you are around when the shit does hit the fan, then, surely, you would want to have some evidence to show that you pushed to take action to correct the problems you saw. There's no mention even of any documentation of their concerns, which surely should be priority number one. I have seen similar (if less extreme) cases where developers knew about problems that no-one acted on. And guess what? When the impact from the problems became apparent, they took the blame, because they had no evidence to exonerate themselves. If the culture of the upper management is not as bad as you assume, then you will end up looking like the bad guy by keeping quiet.
I just bought the V-Moda remix earbuds, in large part because they seemed to get good reviews for durability. I haven't had them long enough to make my own judgement though. Also, they have a LOT of bass, which I love.
Pretty interesting, but I think it reflects well on Apple that these are the class of problems being discussed. None of these things sound like absolute deal-breakers for a Gen1 device.
Will it be useful though? It doesn’t do games or “presence”, or indeed seem very focussed on any uniquely AR/VR experiences right now. It’s not as good a monitor as a proper monitor (this analysis of VAC and resolution is pretty convincing). But it is portable. Maybe that in itself is enough?