It's a bit of a shame that stereoscopic 3D consoles, like the Virtual Boy (or this "Video Boy" here), are no longer a thing outside of VR. And even VR is looking bleak with Meta recently closing their game studios due to huge losses.
I guess people don't want to wear things on their faces. And autostereoscopic screens, which don't require glasses, don't work so well for stationary TVs. The Nintendo 3DS was the only successful system with (auto)stereoscopic 3D so far. Unfortunately its first hardware iteration wasn't quite there yet, and the generally low resolution was an issue.
But I think it could easily have been an optional feature of the Nintendo Switch 2, if they had built in a movable lenticular lens array and a head tracking camera, just like in the "New Nintendo 3DS" (the original 3DS used a simpler but worse system).
To get to the original 1080p resolution, they would also have needed a screen with double the horizontal resolution (3840x1080 rather than 1920x1080), since autostereoscopic screens effectively halve the usable resolution. Games that don't support 3D would just show the same image for both eyes.
It could have been an optional feature even for games that support it, with a choice between a 30FPS 3D mode and a 60 FPS 2D mode, which comes down to the same amount of rendered pixels. An ML system similar to Nvidia's DLSS might even generate the 3D effect (left and right frame) from a single rendered frame by using the depth buffer. For a smaller performance cost.
But I guess the additional hardware cost doesn't justify a cool feature like that.
The thing is, the 3DS was a success mostly despite the 3D, rather than because of it. No one was excited about it or all that impressed - remember that initially the 3DS was such a flop at launch that Nintendo needed to pull a Hail Mary, cutting the price and launching the Ambassador Program. Or consider how successful the 2DS was.
The 3D on it is a very neat trick, but it's mostly a distraction and there's something "uncanny valley"-like and unpleasant about it. I almost always play with the 3D slider off; it's easy for me to see why Nintendo gave up on it.
> The 3D on it is a very neat trick, but it's mostly a distraction and there's something "uncanny valley"-like and unpleasant about it.
I recently picked up a used New 3DS XL to give this a try for the first time, and I actually really like it. With the eye tracking, it's pretty good imo. Did you also try the later iterations of the hardware?
I would add, I've always felt the addition of the 3D screen also held it back because the touch screen became relegated to always being secondary (so that the main display of the game could be 3D). Many games that were sequels to touch-focused DS games did this, they had you touching the bottom screen to interact with something on the top screen and made those games feel a lot worse to me.
IIRC they required all games to work without 3D (because some people couldn't see it? or it gave them motion sickness?), so it could never be a core mechanic and thus doomed to be a "neat trick".
> I don't think we have much to worry about in terms of economic disruption. At this point it seems pretty clear that LLMs are having a major impact on how software is built, but for almost every other industry the practical effects are mostly incremental.
You clearly didn't read the post. He is talking about AI that is smarter than any human, not today's LLMs. The fact that powerful AI doesn't exist yet doesn't mean there is nothing to worry about.
This kind of petty remark is like a reverse em dash. Greetings fellow human.
Anyway, I did read it. The author's description of a future AI is basically just a more advanced version of LLMs
> By “powerful AI,” I have in mind an AI model—likely similar to today’s LLMs in form, though it might be based on a different architecture, might involve several interacting models, and might be trained differently—with the following properties:
They then go on to list several properties that meet their definition, but what I'm trying to explain in my comment is that I don't accept them all at face value. I think it's fair to critique from that perspective since the author explicitly modeled their future based on today's LLMs, unlike many AI essays that skip straight to the super intelligence meme as their premise.
> They then go on to list several properties that meet their definition
No, these properties are part of his definition. To say that we have nothing to worry about because today's LLMs don't have these properties misses the point.
There is also a reading device with a single page in the 1961 Lem novel "Return from the Stars":
> Lem predicts the disappearance of paper books from the society. Lem even describes a reading device very much like a tablet computer that the main character Hal Bregg gets familiar with when he tries to find paper books and newspapers.
What's their angle here? Courts have been over the "Is scraping websites that don't want to be scraped OK?" question plenty of times. From
> SerpApi deceptively takes content that Google licenses from others (like images that appear in Knowledge Panels, real-time data in Search features and much more), and then resells it for a fee. In doing so, it willfully disregards the rights and directives of websites and providers whose content appears in Search.
it sounds like they are somehow suing on behalf of whoever they are licensing content from, but does that even give Google standing?
I guess I'm asking if they actually are hoping to win or just going for a "the process is the punishment"+"we have more money and lawyers than you" approach.
According to CanIUse, no browser implementation currently supports progressive decoding [1]. This is unfortunate, since progressive decoding theoretically is a major advantage of JPEG XL over AVIF, which doesn't allow it in principle, even though ordinary JPEG allows it. But apparently even a default (non-progressive) JPEG XL allows some limited form of progressive decoding [2]. It's unclear whether browsers support it though.
There are special surfaces (also used in some TVs I believe) which actually reflect somewhat less light. I assume this "nano texture" is something like that. (Of course the screen being matte also helps.)
I guess people don't want to wear things on their faces. And autostereoscopic screens, which don't require glasses, don't work so well for stationary TVs. The Nintendo 3DS was the only successful system with (auto)stereoscopic 3D so far. Unfortunately its first hardware iteration wasn't quite there yet, and the generally low resolution was an issue.
But I think it could easily have been an optional feature of the Nintendo Switch 2, if they had built in a movable lenticular lens array and a head tracking camera, just like in the "New Nintendo 3DS" (the original 3DS used a simpler but worse system).
To get to the original 1080p resolution, they would also have needed a screen with double the horizontal resolution (3840x1080 rather than 1920x1080), since autostereoscopic screens effectively halve the usable resolution. Games that don't support 3D would just show the same image for both eyes.
It could have been an optional feature even for games that support it, with a choice between a 30FPS 3D mode and a 60 FPS 2D mode, which comes down to the same amount of rendered pixels. An ML system similar to Nvidia's DLSS might even generate the 3D effect (left and right frame) from a single rendered frame by using the depth buffer. For a smaller performance cost.
But I guess the additional hardware cost doesn't justify a cool feature like that.
reply