benjvi

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.

This then encourages free riding, no?

In the general case, the goals of the company and the employee are not always aligned so I don't think this is an easy problem to solve.

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

The linked stats show 1,5 and 10 year survival rates, which are all roughly following the same trend

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?