Digging through their web page, are one point they describe it as “multi-view parallax” which I’m interpreting as a parallax barrier based display, providing different views depending on view angle.
The background environment is static, and I think it might be a seperate optical layer (maybe even an actual hologram?)
I'd assumed it was actually a parallax barrier, possibly with a lenticular sheet in front of it to help fill in the gaps, but yeah it could just be lenticular like those "3D" photos with the plastic lens sheet in front of them.
> How good is the illusion? Will it look 3D or somewhat off?
I've got the original 8" Looking Glass Portrait (from the Kickstarter) and it's not bad? Works well enough to get the sense of depth but wouldn't fool anyone for a second[1][2].
> Will it look 3D still if I am still and nothing is moving in view?
Yes (or at least mine does)
[1] May be just my workflow, mind; it's not like I'm spending a huge amount of time crafting content for it.
[2] And I'd assume they've refined the technology since then.
Thanks, I thought I remembered seeing these folks a while ago. From checking on Kickstarter it looks like they actually had three different ones so far.
First Kickstarter had pretty positive, seems like there were a lot of delivery issues with the later Kickstarters. Still, done three of these so far with at least some percentage actually getting something eventually.
It's difficult to tell on Kickstarter sometimes, since there's a bunch that have horrible order fulfillment, and collapsed delivering almost nothing, or pulled snatch and grab rug pulls, yet there's also a lot of people who expect it's like clicking "ship" on Amazon.
The Kickstarters actually have a lot of answers to the tech questions about turning flat photos into 3D images and taking 3D pictures, and the basic tech ideas being used.
Hard to tell but from the videos and the described toolchain it sounds like the video is actually completely 2D and they're just presenting it inside a 'holographic' environment. Think of it like a model theatre with a Pepper's Ghost illusion in the middle, except with some fancypants optics to make the display actually be much thinner than the 'theatre' insde.
The cars behind the waymo and hit it were at fault for the collision.
My guess is that the ambiguity is about the trade-off: "even if no one should hit you for slamming on the brakes, is it a good risk to take over a cat?"
I remember paper models being very widespread when I was a kid in the Czech Republic, they were always included in a popular magazine for kids, no idea whether it has changed. Per ChatGPT this is unique for this region - Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia.
And that's going to be before or after customers will be able to exactly specify what they want and will be able to tell you where the error is including stack trace and set of steps which they did before the crash, not just "it is not working"
I am not sure that we are not presented with a Catch-22. Yes, life might likely be better for developers and other careers if AI fails to live up to expectations. However, a lot companies, i.e., many of our employers, have invested a lot of money in these products. In the event AI fails, I think the stretched rubber band of economics will slap back hard. So, many might end up losing their jobs (and more) anyway.
Even if it takes off, they might have invested in the wrong picks or etc. If you think of the dot com boom the Internet was eventually a very successful thing, e commerce did work out, but there were a lot of losing horses to bet on.
If AI fails to continue to improve, the worst-case economic outcome is a short and mild recession and probably not even that.
Once sector of the economy would cut down on investment spending, which can be easily offset by decreasing the interest rate.
But this is a short-term effect. What I'm worried is a structural change of the labor market, which would be positive for most people, but probably negative for people like me.
Yes, it's bad. Because we're all dying of cancer, heart disease and auto-immune disease, not to mention traffic accidents and other random killers that AI could warn us about and fix.
I don't mind losing my programming job in exchange for being able to go to the pharmacy for my annual anti-cancer pill.
Fair point on improvements outside of garbage generative AI.
But, what happens when you lose that programming job and are forced to take a job at a ~50-70% pay reduction? How are you paying for that anti-cancer drug with a job with no to little health insurance?
Which is completely detached from reality. Where are the social programs for this? Hell, we've spent the last 8 months hampering social systems, not bolstering them.
>Yes, it's bad. Because we're all dying of cancer, heart disease and auto-immune disease, not to mention traffic accidents and other random killers that AI could warn us about and fix.
Is this really a useful argument? There is clearly potential for AI to solve a lot of important issues. Anybody saying "and has this cured x y or z?" before a huge discovery was made after years of research isn't a good argument to stop research.
It is in the face of naive, overoptimistic arguments that straight up ignore the negative impacts, that IMO vastly outweigh the positive ones. We will have the cure of cancer, but everyone loses their jobs. This happened before, with nuclear energy. The utopia of clean, too cheap to meter nuclear energy never came, though we have enough nukes to glass the planet ten times over.
Stop pretending that the people behind this technology is genuinely motivated by what's best for humanity.
What's the benefit for the AI masters to keep you in good health? Corporate healthcare exists only because it's necessary to keep workers making money for the corporation, but remove that need and corpos will dump us on the streets.
Even if AI could help, it won’t in the current system. The current system which is throwing trillions into AI research on the incentive to replace expensive labor, all while people don’t have basic health insurance.
I mean, that presumes that the answer to generating your anti-cancer pill, or the universal cure to heart disease has already been found, but humans can't see it because the data is disparate.
The likelihood of all that is incredibly slim. It's not 0% -- nothing ever really is -- but it is effectively so.
Especially with the economics of scientific research, the reproducibility crisis, and general anti-science meme spreading throughout the populace. The data, the information, isn't there. Even if it was, it'd be like Alzheimer's research: down the wrong road because of faked science.
There is no one coming to save humanity. There is only our hard work.
Cool. Tell that to my 35 year old friend who died of cancer last year. Or, better yet, the baby of a family friend that was born with brain cancer. You might have had a hard time getting her to hear you with all the screaming in pain she constantly did until she finally mercifully died before her first birthday, though.
Cancer is just aging like dying from tetanus or rabies is just aging. On a long enough timeline everybody eventually steps on a rusty nail or gets scratched by a bat.
If you solve everything that kills you then you don't die from "just aging" anymore.
If not for everything else that kills you first, then tetanus and rabies is an affliction of the old.
But of course it's not, because we have near-100% cures for both. Just like we should have for every other affliction, which would make being old no longer synonymous with being sick and frail and dying.
>I don't mind losing my programming job in exchange for being able to go to the pharmacy for my annual anti-cancer pill
Have you looked at how expensive prescription drug prices are without (sometimes WITH) insurance? If you are no longer employed, good luck paying for your magical pill.
You are losing your job either way. Either AI will successfully take it, or as you no doubt read in the article yesterday, AI is the only thing propping up the economy, so the jobs will also be cut in the fallout if AI fails to deliver.
Except one is recoverable from, just as we eventually recovered from dotcom. The other is permanent and requires either government intervention in the form of UBI(good luck with that), or a significant amount of the population retraining for other careers and starting over, if that's even possible.
But yeah, you are correct in that no matter what, we're going to be left holding the bag.
Exactly. A slowdown in AI investment spending would have a short-term and tiny effect on the economy.
I'm not worried about the scenario in which AI replaces all jobs, that's impossible any time soon and it would probably be a good thing for the vast majority of people.
What I'm worried about is a scenario in which some people, possibly me, will have to switch from a highly-paid, highly comfortable and above-average-status jobs to jobs that are below avarage in wage, comfort and status.
> Except one is recoverable from, just as we eventually recovered from dotcom.
"Dotcom" was never recovered. It, however, did pave the way for web browsers to gain rich APIs that allowed us to deliver what was historically installed desktop software on an on-demand delivery platform, which created new work. As that was starting to die out, the so-called smartphone just so happened to come along. That offered us the opportunity to do it all over again, except this time we were taking those on-demand applications and turning them back into installable software just like in the desktop era. And as that was starting to die out COVID hit and we started moving those installable mobile apps, which became less important when people we no longer on the go all the time, back to the web again. As that was starting to die out, then came ChatGPT and it offered work porting all those applications to AI platforms.
But if AI fails to deliver, there isn't an obvious next venue for us to rebuild the same programs all over yet again. Meta thought maybe VR was it, but we know how that turned out. More likely in that scenario we will continue using the web/mobile/AI apps that are already written henceforth. We don't really need the same applications running in other places anymore.
There is still room for niche applications here and there. The profession isn't apt to die a complete death. But without the massive effort to continually port everything from one platform to another, you don't need that many people.
The idea that AI is somehow responsible for a huge chunk of software development demand is ridiculous. The demand for software has a very diverse structure.
It can result in a loss of relative status or self-esteem for the people who are fit. If I'm fit thanks to some combination of genetics and lifestyle, this fact is probably a source of my self-esteem, it's something that makes me better than most people in a certain aspect.
The world is more complicated than a 17th century lab experiment in combustion.
Forests sequester carbon through forest fires producing charcoal. Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment.
Wetlands capture carbon by incorporating wood from dead trees in anoxic conditions.
> When plant productivity exceeds decomposition, net soil carbon accumulation occurs. This process eventually leads to the formation of deep peat deposits, which can accumulate for thousands of years.
> Forests sequester carbon through forest fires producing charcoal
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon in the charcoal resulting from forest fires isn't sequestered any more than the same carbon in the forest when in its un-burned state. The only difference is that, once you have a forest fire, a lot of the carbon is also just released into the atmosphere as CO2 in smoke.
It does sometimes in forests that burn. And generally, forests keep building up soil, it's disturbances and things like erosion (sometimes worsened by fires) that counter this buildup. But mature forests tend to do a lot better at resisting erosion and catastrophic (erosion-causing) fires.
Forests do not infinitely accumulate soil. When we dig into the ground in a mature forest, the layer with organic remnants is not particularly thick. Dead organic decomposes and returns back above the ground.
Show me the megatons/year of charcoal being produced by the worlds forests eh?
We could process them yes, but we can also just make them into timber - or burn them for energy. Or just bury them somewhere under a bunch of clay. Oh, and now we’re back to this thread.
It's as ridiculous as the comparison of the most recent 12k years of the holocene to the age of plant life on the Earth.
As for using lumber for timber, when eventually disposed it would have to be turned into charcoal rather than burned for energy or let decompose in conditions that don't sequester carbon.
You also missed the point about using charcoal for soil enrichment.
There is zero chance this makes a difference at the scales required. That is my point. Or are you proposing somehow making billions of tons of lumber into charcoal a year, and stopping it from further decay?
The parent comment I'm responding to is literally:
> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.
To which I'm stating that forests and wetlands are not carbon-neutral but carbon-negative.
Then you miss the parent comment's context and start in an inflammatory way:
> Bwahaha, this is so ridiculous.
And take it somewhere else (move the goalpost) - from whether forests are carbon neutral or not to how effective charcoal creation is at carbon capture, in our human timescale.
Meanwhile the only practical point wrt. charcoal creation from forests was:
> Humans could actually cut down old trees, dry them, and convert them to charcoal later used for soil enrichment.
Which doesn't propose an effective carbon capture solution. At most it's something like emission reduction - the key phrase is old trees. And soil enrichment.
Recommendation: don't argue against points people didn't make.
Sounds like you might want to actually read the thread? Unless there is a geological process involved (very rare, and obvious when there is), long term forests and wetlands are carbon neutral - or they would be sitting on massive quantities of carbon. The vast majority are clearly not.
Most of the land in question isn't a mature ecosystem in equilibrium, and if it is there are other arguments against turning that into cornfields. But let's say the worst case is that it's carbon neutral.
The point is that biofuel production isn't carbon neutral. Maybe it could be theoretically, but in practice it takes energy inputs in the production process like in the fertilizers, processing of crop into fuel, and transport/distribution, which makes it net positive for atmospheric carbon.
Soil too eventually reaches an equilibrium where carbon injection and carbon oxidation are in balance.
If what you thought was true, imagine a forest sitting there for millions of years. Where would this permanently sequestered carbon be going? Soils do not become unboundedly thick.
This was true in the carboniferous period, when the organisms able to metabolize the lignin in trees haven't evolved yet, so the dead trees ended up as coal.
No. Europe has some small manufacturers, Infineon and NXP but nothing targeting the ultra high end of chip manufacturing.
The EU should obviously set up an Initiative like Rapidus and their ignorance there will certainly cost the continent a lot.
Europe is the only place in the world where you could have a meaningful "made in Europe chip", basically everything in the Semiconductor value chain is already there, except for the manufacturing. China is trying to get there, the EU is just neglecting the opportunity that exists.
