elementalest

If everyone has apps that remind them to take time for a friend automatically (as it determined they needed it), the intention loses some of its meaning. That friend wont know if it was you that remembered because you cared and took notice, but simply the app reminded you. It's about the motivation behind your actions, its what can give a deeper meaning to them. The fact that you or another friend cared or noticed enough and remembered, gives it significance.

With too much automation of our social lives and relationships, many actions may simply become meaningless. Maybe they would even be done away with after a while, making human interaction colder, less personal. My app will talk with your app and setup a time to do something we enjoy, without either of us thinking of it ourselves, or discussing it. We would just have to show up, as directed by our apps. These apps remind us what we should discuss or mention, given our friends likes/dislikes. Sure we might have a great time, but the app might have prioritised meeting this friend over another, as your more compatible (measured via some series of metrics). You rely on the algorithm. Your not actually thinking about who you want to spend time with and why. Would you be able to make friends without the app?

Whilst i somewhat agree with the sentiment, the difference now is in the amount of efficiencies or benefits gained. The gains/benefits from tools, farming, writing etc, are quite large. The gains from an app suggesting a movie or book, or reminding you to do various things in your life, are quite small in comparison. It might be merely a matter of a few minutes.

It begs the question, is it worth gaining a few minutes here and there each day for the price of dependence on apps and a degree of disconnection from what makes us human?

If you know what to google then you probably know what to look for in the documentation. Its often just faster to google though. I think google is good for beginners that dont know what they dont know - or for a quick reference examples.

When i am learning a new language/library, rather than reading through the documentation trying to find something to solve my problem (as i dont know what to look for), i simply google it and get to the solution faster. I retain knowledge much better if its relevant to my current problem. Often i will then be able to place a name/concept to my problem and then be able to find it much easier in the documentation.

AMD are supporting open standards like OpenCL, which is effectively their answer to CUDA. The problem is that Nvidia refuse to keep their drivers up to date with the latest OpenCL capabilities. The latest version nVidia supports is OpenCL 1.1, but its now up to OpenCL 2.2. nVidia are years behind on OpenCL. This is pretty much the primary reason why CUDA seems so far ahead.

nVidia released new features and capabilities on CUDA that later versions of OpenCL also supported, but were not available on nVidia cards due to lack of OpenCL driver support. Hence, lots of people developed libraries and tools for CUDA, with great encouragement and support from nVidia (which attracted developers). These tools were useful and powerful, encouraging others to also use nVidia hardware to take advantage of those tools. CUDA has now taken root.

If nVidia were to start keeping their drivers updated with the latest version of OpenCL, i suspect CUDA's dominance would start to wane. Though the CUDA roots have gone deep, so it may take several years to reverse its dominance. However, its highly unlikely that nVidia will update their drives any time soon. The only thing that would probably force them is AMD gaining market dominance for a few years.

The data the agent perceives is going to be very different from what would be attained from access to dooms internals, as a 'normal' AI would have. The challenge is to bridge the image recognition and intelligence together efficiently and effectively.

Of course it does not make sense to use in a real game implementation. The idea is that such technology could (with further development) be used in real world scenarios/applications. The problem is simply posed in a game environment to make it interesting and easier to approach.

The rift has more steps in the tracking process. It has to track the dots of the currently displayed pattern. Transpose that into 3D space. Then it can perform triangulation.

The vive needs to only convert the time information to position relative to the base station. Then using the base station position, it can localise in 3D via the same/similar triangulation approach as the rift.

Hence, the rift requires significantly more processing power than the vive. This will likely introduce some latency, though its probably negligible to human perception. Furthermore, as the rift shows different patterns, it is possible, if moving fast enough for the patterns to move between frames, warping the dot patterns of the headset. This is a similar problem to the vive's sweeping. The major problem I see with the rift, is that adding more objects to be tracked only increases latency and complexity for tracking from a 2D image (more flashing patterns).

The lighthouse does not need to handle different timestamps for tracking. At each instant in time when new sensor data is received, the pose model is updated with the new sensor info (similar to a kalman filter). The pose model can be designed to update a single axis at a time though. There is only ~17ms between each axis update. You would have to be moving very fast to cause issues with tracking.

So, objectively the vives tracking is a superior design. Its elegant and simple. The vive and rift may perform similarly within the restrictions of their respective domains of use, such that 90% of the time people can't tell the difference. However, I would argue the vives domain is conservative. Start to move outside of those domains, the lighthouse system has much more potential and very few limitations that cant be reasonably/practically mitigated.

As you stated its not used for all tracking, but simply drift checking in pose estimation. So needing to update each axis simultaneously is not essential. The pose estimation is just updated with the latest values to correct for drift. At 60Hz this is sufficient, as the average movement speed of humans is likely not fast enough to produce noticeable problems.

The rift on the other hand has to do image processing. This requires significantly more processing power and is only as good as the resolution of the camera. The further you move from the camera, the less accurate it gets. The tracking device must also be tethered to the PC (via usb), limiting potential for adding multiple tracking cameras to improve accuracy. Also the more cameras you add, the more processing is required.

The vive does not have these issue - as long as the laser is in range, it will be as accurate as if you were right next to it. Adding more base units improves the accuracy at no extra processing cost. The design of the vive also allows pose estimation to be distributed. Ignoring occlusion issues in a small space, the lighthouse system could be used for tracking hundreds of devices.

What this essentially means, is that you can walk around a room with the vive and have a great experience [1]. While this might be possible with the rift, the experience is likely not going to be as good as the vive, and may be quite poor at times.

[1] https://youtu.be/VD4UlShicgY

This just goes to show the rift vs vive argument is very much a subjective matter. However, objectively, the vives tracking technology is superior in design (and elegance) to the rifts. Though they may effectively produce the same result in 90% of cases, the vive has way more potential (tracking multiple people and objects, as its passive). For this alone IMHO the vive wins.

But of course, as there are many subjective factors to consider, so its going to be different for everyone. Having variety and choice is great for consumers though!

The biggest hindrance in the country where I live is licensing agreements. Companies buy exclusive rights to popular content, limit it to their restrictive and expensive platform/service. This license will often last from 6 months to a year. I'm tired of getting the, "this content is not available in your region" because its either unlicensed or been elusively licensed.

I understand the benefits of exclusivity in distinguishing products, but rather than 6-12 months (or sometimes more), it should be more like 2 weeks, or a month. Unlike exclusivity on xbox/ps4/pc, where the content is specifically designed for those platforms, there is no technical reason for exclusivity for media content.

Half the time the rights holders don't even license some content for my country until a few weeks to months later. Occasionally, not at all. They could license it on netflix for my country, or other similar service, but refuse to do so. Yet this is in spite of netflix having a license for the same content in the US, or other regions.

With the internet, regional licensing just makes no sense for digital goods. A service like netflix should be able to obtain a license for content and distribute it to whom ever they want to, where ever they are. The only barriers to this are artificial.

So while the future may be rushing forward, in many ways, we are partially stuck in the past, held back by archaic and antiquated systems of past generations that are unable to let go. Its a matter of perspective. For some the future isn't coming soon enough, for others its rushing by.

That's a good point. The system could potentially be much more expressive with that approach, in that its not limited to simple categorical voting.

It will still have the problem that child comments of a downvoted comment will not get as much exposure. It also means that even if the comment was just unpopular (despite being well thought out) it will be downvoted after the first person posts a comment disagreeing.

Another approach could be to factor child karma when ranking comments. Though this gets significantly more complex as there are many edge cases where this will not work as intended.

I like the idea of deducting karma for a downvote. However, forcing a comment on downvote, while perhaps leading to less downvotes, might also just lead to many more comments that are not thought out and simply put there in order to downvote.

Maybe we need more nuanced voting options? While this could get a bit complex, such a system may function better. People could upvote a post as it is well written/thought out and/or is provocative/clever/interesting, but downvote it as they disagree. The overall comment karma would balance out, rather than it just being downvoted as lots of people disagreed with it.

Facebook is now using a similar type of system with their multiple emotes. I think such a system would work well with the HN community. It may lead to more thought out comments, as simple opinions can be expressed more accurately via the voting system.

I had never thought there might be an extension for collapsing comments...

You have just saved me so much scrolling :D

If you are unemployed because you are genuinely unable to find work, then that's an entirely different matter (and I apologise, and wish you all the best for finding work). I got the impression that you were unemployed by choice, especially given your various statements (and the rest of this post is partially prefaced on that assumption). Therein lies the problem. While your personal situation may work for you, it will not work for a vast majority of people. So my response was in regard to the various broad unqualified statements you made. I personally don't have anything against your choice. I can understand where you are coming from. However, your statements seem to reveal a certain level of naivete.

There are many people that must work in order to pay their families living expenses as they are married and have children. Even with welfare they might not have enough money to live above the poverty line. So they must work. While they could choose not to work, its hardly much of a choice.

I'm guessing your living with your parents (based on your statements). What if your parents decided to stop working? While in your circumstance they might have saved up enough money to live comfortably for many years, they had to work to get it in the first place. There are many people that cannot live with their parents for various reasons.

> Jobs are one avenue for this fulfillment.

I didn't say jobs are the only avenue for fulfilment, merely one avenue to it. People in undesirable jobs generally aren't there by choice. This breaks down your assertion that jobs aren't necessary.

> I think it's a great thing to live with your parents. And if there are a lot of NEETs in japan, maybe there are reasons behind it which go beyond "naivete". Calling this an epidemic without trying to understand the reasons behind it is easy.

Its an epidemic regardless of the reason behind it. I'm fully aware of the tough working conditions many face there, and that it will drive some to avoid employment due to the unbearable pressure. I suspect there are many that are simply just unmotivated to work, and have the means to do so.

>> and people will find all sorts of ways to justify their apparent lack of motivation.

> Why should people have any motivation? Is it some kind of a moral duty? Don't you read that people can be angry, desperate and resentful about their economic situation?

This is where I see the issue. You have formed opinions which justify your lack of motivation and project it onto others. Your situation might work for you, but it does not work for everybody. Yet you do not understand this:

"I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong to something so that society can function". I can't really express it. What bothers me is that somehow, even after the new deal and social programs, not having a salary or income is seen as some sort of a bad thing, and often, it will be a bad thing for your mental health (isolation, lack of personal goals)."

These social programs only function because others work. Their taxes pay for your expenses. These welfare systems are designed for people who are unable to find work, despite trying to find it. While there are some places trialling basic income, until most of the western world moves to it (unlikely any time soon), you are a burden to society. Now maybe in a few years, you will finish making your game (i hope it goes well), and it will sell well, justifying your unemployment. Until then many people will not understand your choice, and even dislike you for it. As I said previously, it would be a different matter if you quit your job to make your dream game. People can see you have a goal and are motivated - that you don't intend to remain a burden.

>> then you are a burden

> That's the worse thing you can call an unemployed person. Not only am I not interacting with anybody, but now I should feel guilty for my situation? How do you want me to improve my situation if you accuse me? I don't really like to continue this kind of conversation, because it only deal with social constructs, which aren't really good standards.

If you are seeking work and unable to find it, then I agree, its not a good thing to say to an unemployed person. However, I'm assuming you are unemployed by choice. If you are isolated, you need to work on a social life. It is your choice to be isolated. If you are actively trying to seek employment, then you should absolutely not feel guilty.

"Jobs aren't necessary anymore."

What a statement. It rings of naivete. How would you pay for your living expenses? Are you living with someone who pays your living expenses? Do they work? Or are you on social welfare?

Who maintains the automation? Who designs these systems? Until robots and AI can do everything (which is a long way away), there's always going to be something that no one wants to do. Getting paid is an incentive to do it. We are also a long way from becoming a non growth focused economy. Until such a time as strong AI and a non growth focused economy become a reality (if ever), jobs are necessary, and always will be.

People also like to be useful, to feel like they matter, or be part of something greater than themselves. Jobs are one avenue for this fulfilment. Someone who is intentionally unemployed is not being useful. If you are on welfare, or your supported by family, then you are a burden. Others are required to work, but you choose not to at their expense. Why are you entitled to do what you want, when others can't? That is seen as unfair, so you cop resentment.

"I always sense there is this weird belief that "people must work and belong to something so that society can function"."

I suspect you believe this to justify your lack of motivation for employment. There is a big epidemic of this type of attitude in Japan (neet's) [1], where young people refuse to work and just live off their families income. It might be different if you had decided to quit your job and make your dream game. You were never employed and don't want to be.

I think we are in a weird point in western society, where we are generally more well off than any other time. The basic costs of living are relatively low for a single person, particularly if they live with their parents. A lot of the basic things have become much easier than before. So, its much easier to be unemployed (particularly in welfare based societies), and people will find all sorts of ways to justify their apparent lack of motivation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET

The difference between supervised and unsupervised is that the inputs are paired with known outputs for supervised. In unsupervised the agent has (initially) no knowledge of what the outputs will be, given the inputs.

The baby does not know (initially) that something will cause pain, or the extremities of its joints. It must learn this over time and experience. The baby must also learn how to use the built in components, as it has no idea what outputs will occur given the inputs.

As you allude to, there are built in mechanisms/configurations in the brain which provide various forms of feedback, as well as built in behaviours and responses. If there was no basic structure to the brain, I think it would be almost impossible for an unsupervised agent to develop and learn to the complexity and level of a human brain. These basic behaviours significantly speed the initial development process up.

I really like sublime text, i have considered buying it several times. I go to the buy page and see the price tag - $70 US! Nope.

Given the very slow and infrequent development and the fact that its just a text editor (albeit a fancy one), i really can't justify the price.

I would consider buying if it was receiving regular updates (bug fixes, new features, etc) and had a bit of certainty with its future. But really, if it was priced around $20, i would have bought it ages ago - and if it hadn't then, I'd buy it now.

Ah, thanks :D

This is how i often work with things. I break them down into things that i know how to work with. I search my knowledge for elements that most closely represents the problems and then combine them.

For example, rather than remembering 12 * 6 = 72, i recall that 10 * 6 = 60 and 2 * 6 = 12, hence 60 + 12 = 72. I don't need to remember as many things and for me i can do that much faster than trying to recall it.

My memory has never been very good, so perhaps this is why i take such an approach, as i find it overall easier.

I'm not saying that VR will not be used, but that AR will be a much better technology for the industry, learning applications and general use. There will still be niches for VR, in much the same way there is now.

VR is good for simulations/games. For real world usage, AR will become an enabler. As an example, after having run simulations to learn the basics of flying a plane (using VR), you can then use AR to help you as you do the real thing. You could continue to use AR to assist in providing pertinent information while flying. The same process could be used for any kind of machinery that people must learn to use (driving for example).

AR has far more scope and relevance for applications outside of games. It is also much harder to do right than VR. I'm of the opinion that VR will pave the way for AR.

I think VR will become a niche for games. Sitting/cockpit games like star citizen or elite dangerous are niches where VR will work very well. VR will be a novelty for a while, but wear off, just like the Wii. I really cant see many people wanting a standing experience for extended gameplay. Most people just want to sit on the couch/chair and play games for a few hours.

The momentum and novelty is already starting to wear off as you noted. Though i'm sure when the headsets finally release, the novelty will be rekindled for a while. I'm just not sure its going to be everything that all the hype has promised.

As for practical applications, i think for those you mentioned, augmented reality (AR) will be a much more suitable fit to those applications overall.

It really will be interesting to see how things develop.

The ultimate goal with AI/ML is generalisability and adaptability in unpredictable environments. If you want those, you make it very hard to produce 100% predictability.

I would ask, why do you need predictability? If we are talking about reliability, then simulations and live testing can provide those metrics.

I agree. One way to address that is to define a space at home that is your work office/space. So a study, or corner of a room. If a corner of a room, you could even get some dividers to separate yourself from the rest of the room. It also helps hide work if you also use the room for something else.

Then doing something like going to the gym, or going for a jog etc when you finished work for the day can help you make the mental disconnect. A routine can really help develop that mindset.

The cat situation is so bad in some areas one guy made an automated cat deterrent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIbkLjjlMV8

While this system would allow for lazy people, it would also allow people to become free to pursue what they find interesting and worthwhile. Motivated, interested and passionate workers are more productive, creative, efficient and dedicated.

I don't think our society could suddenly switch to a basic income system. However, I think a gradual change would allow for such a system to be implemented over time. I think proper welfare and healthcare are good places to start. Gradually adding to it, where people's who's jobs have become obsolete and they are getting too old to re-skill, can get support. Then people who simply lose their jobs from automation replacement or being obsolete, can seek for support.

Eventually we can phase in the base income. If you are smart or lucky enough, you can get paid more. Otherwise you can pursue other aspects of life - entertainment probably being the most popular one.

Now i do think getting the money to do this in the first place is problematic. The only way it would probably function, is if those who work get paid a LOT of money. Therefore the taxes obtained from them cover the rest of the populations base income. Now some would not like this because the few are essentially carrying the many. However, with the number of people and limited work, there will always be someone willing to work to get that money, or those who just have a pure passion for their work. Being highly competitive also means most people probably wont be able to hold down their job for a long period. Others will replace them as they are smarter/younger/better/lucky etc.

Its not a perfect system, but it is probably better than the alternative we face in the next 10-30 years, with capitalisms heavily unbalanced wealth distribution and insufficient jobs to provide an income for people to survive on.

I would love to use this app! I have been doing something to similar effect for Anki except using web scraping/API of various japanese dictionary sites with python scripts. The whole thing is clunky and buggy and requires a fair amount of manual work (which i always intended to automate, but not had the time), so i would love to use an app that does this all well.

Unfortunately being iOS only locks me out. I noticed at the bottom of the page it states it was built from the ground up for iOS. This tells me it could take a while (maybe never) to get a port to another OS.

I don't think Hollywood thinks it can catch tech savvy people like us here. They want to catch and deter non tech savvy people.

Sure, the non tech savvy people can learn how to circumvent detection by using a VPN from others who know, but this then creates a barrier. It requires an account with montly/yearly subscription. This also leaves a trail. If enough people are using a VPN povider (thats within the US reach) just like ISP's they can request user details, linking a credit card to an IP address. Of course you could use bit coins, but then this is another barrier which will likely deter many people.

Even if it only works for a few years becuase some amazing crypto software is developed and makes it imposible to track people, they will have gotten the message across to most people in the mean time. It will also likely only be a matter of time before someone figures out a way to circumvent the crytpo.

Stating hackers don't stop from the threat of jail even for minor things, and implying it will be the same for filesharing is stretching it. Cybercrime is fundamentally different to filesharing. Different people and different scenarios.

They will likely throw a few major offenders in jail as exemplars. For the rest they will probably use various (im-proportionately) large fines to continue to discourage people from filesharing.

"How can law enforcement possibly police this?"

Given that breaching copyright would be classified as a criminal offence with the TPP, and meta-data access is only for criminal purposes, meta-data and an automated system can be used. So once the system is in place, very easily.

"C'mon, seriously? Is there anyone who doesn't know risk of imprisonment doesn't act as deterrent. There are Australian's about to be executed in Indonesia for drug trafficking. Should be pretty obvious."

Risk of imprisonment may not deter some, but it may deter enough for them to feel its worth it.