There is some signal[1] that maybe Fuchsia as an OS will support Android apps out of the box. As I'm sure we both know though, ANYTHING can happen between now and the ship date.
I like 360 panorama movies. Done right, the feeling of presence is excellent. VR is a niche to begin with, so I would hesitate to say that any one application (ex. CAD, gaming, 360 panoramas, etc) is the "killer app" so far since the audience is so small. As it grows (which I pray it will), we'll see definitive trends emerge.
The feeling of presence is so limited compared to realtime-rendered 3d spaces where you can move your head around from the central camera point even just a bit. Adding some artificial parallax shift to the movie frames might be enough to give it that extra oomph to feel truly immersive.
The Oculus Go doesn't have 6 DoF, and he's been working on that and phone-based VR for the last few years. Because they're cheaper, they move a lot more units! And because they're more constrained, they need more optimization attention from someone like Carmack.
That is what a good coding project is for! If you've got Python experience, or just want to have fun with it, BeautifulSoup can do exactly what you want. There might be Firefox plugins as well.
What? No, it works fine with http out of the box. From the man page:
GNU Wget is a free utility for non-interactive download of files from the Web. It supports HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP protocols, as well as retrieval through HTTP proxies.
I think the GP's uncertainty relates to download URL wildcards with HTTP. Unlike FTP, I don't believe that HTTP servers have to support your request to list all files in a directory.
I don't know the true answer to your question, but since encoding is expected to reach just 5X of VP9 by the end of this year, I think decoding is in the same order.
The plan, of course, is in the coming years there will be decoders baked into the silicon so the computational complexity is offloaded from the CPU and therefore becomes (in some ways) irrelevant.
"Google" is actually a key differentiator here, because I think Google is uniquely focused on both design (it's been a long road to get here, but at this point I think Google is second only to Apple in design focus.) and interopability. Apple would _never_ make a cross-platform UI framework. What does this mean? Google's vast resources in design, development, & testing, equaled by very few, are behind this initiative. There's no doubt that is a competitive advantage.
The more interesting question is "Why does Flutter exist?" Google is, after all, a business. What's the ROI? Here's my theory: Google is known to be developing a new operating system from scratch called Fuschia[1]. Many many OSes have died in the crib because there was no app ecosystem for them, and thus the cost of switching to the "new thing" was too high for users. How do you solve this problem? Maybe if you create a cross-platform app development framework that lets developers write for the two incumbents while also ensuring compatibility with your new OS...
I don't care about Google's design or operating systems. I don't want Google designed controls on my operating systems. Just like the Electron stuff doesn't look good on Mac or Windows (or GTK for that matter), likewise Google designed widgets won't look native on Mac, Windows or iOS. If your next thought is "what about the Cupertino widgets," what about them? They will never look or feel fully like the native stuff. So why should we settle for that either?
I'm saying it's the same, and has the same issues as other, less desired frameworks. I was wondering why Flutter gets a free pass on the same issues and why people are so excited about it, since similar frameworks exist for 20+ years.
Agreed: Qualcomm is not a "patent troll", they're a normal company with a very sizable IP portfolio they rightfully innovated and use in their own products, as well as licensing to other companies. Whether they abuse their market position is its own question, but they have nothing to do with companies that were founded solely to buy vague "shopping cart" patents and make money only via lawsuit settlements.
Disagree strongly. Qualcomm agreed to license their patents in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) manner in return for having those patents included in wireless standards, and then turned around and broke those agreements.
And that's really only the tip of the iceberg for the shenanigans that Qualcomm has engaged in. By spreading FUD, they were instrumental in ensuring that the US used their CDMA standard rather than the (arguably superior) European GSM standards which they didn't have any patents on.
IOW, patent trolling is legal. Qualcomm's patent trolling was so egregious that they've paid billions in antitrust fines and lost lawsuits.
While I dont like Qualcomm and think they are charging too much. I dont think this comment paints the whole picture.
Qualcomm doesn't licensee ONLY the wireless FRAND patents, they licenses everything from CPU to software design , battery, antenna etc patents.
Now the problem is they dont allow you to choose which one parts to license. They lump it together, and they say you are guarantee to be using one of our CPU / Antenna / Battery patents we have "invented". So just paid for the whole thing.
While you can put a price on FRAND patents, you cant fairly price the other patents which is not part of it.
And, just on the defence of Qualcomm, they do actually do R&D and invent these stuff, so patents trolling isn't exactly a fair word to them.
According to Apple CEO Tim Cook spoken on record, for every 6 dollars of wireless patents, 1 dollars goes to 5 companies that is Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, etc, and 5 dollars goes to Qualcomm.
Personally I think they are charging too much. But we dont really have a way to solve this pricing problem. So legal becomes the only choice.
The referenced blog post by the founder/chairman of MPEG is worth reading.[1] In it, Chiariglione expresses regret not for the money and control his organization is losing, but for the loss of competition which he claims will slow innovation. It will be interesting to see if this comes to pass, but my hope is that the collaboration of these companies will outpace the historically siloed research consisting of a dozen companies duplicating work.
The cities that don't get chosen, yes. But the thinking is that Amazon has already secretly picked a city years ago (Let's say Washington, DC) who was not originally planning to offer any tax breaks.Then they make a this big show that's basically The Bachelor, causing every city to fall over themselves to offer tax breaks. Once 200+ cities offer tax breaks, then Washington, DC feels compelled to "bid" like everyone else, unknowingly sweetening a deal that has already been "made."
Note: this was a relatively small sample (40 total, split in half for placebo/not), who were elderly people who already have "mild" memory problems, and given a concentrated turmeric derivative rather than just sprinkling it over food.
In summary: very cool, and I'd offer these curcumin supplements to anyone 50+ but sprinkling turmeric on your breakfast cereal ain't going to do much for high schoolers.
Actually the age range was 51-84, so middle plus old age, not all "elderly". Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50.
Volunteers had "objective cognitive performance scores and clinical histories consistent with normal aging or MCI (i.e., mild neurocognitive disorder) and inconsistent with dementia (i.e., major neurocognitive disorder)." [emphasis added]
"Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50."
This is false. The only advantage people in their fifties have is experience. Your body is past its peak physically and mentally. People flourishing in their fifties are by and large reaping the benefits of things done in their younger decades, not because they are peaking.
I'm not saying that someone that is 50 years old is decrepit, but ask nearly any academic and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. Ask nearly any athlete (ultramarathoners being an exception) and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger.
I didn't make that comment. However, I would say that people in their fifties have started to experience age-related decline in numerous areas (memory included). Showing a memory improvement in people 50-80 should be more accurately described as "restoring" their memory rather than "boosting" it, which implies that they now have supranormal memory.
Am in my late 50s, can confirm. Memory, concentration, attention, and a bunch of other faculties, both mental and physical, are trending disgustingly downward.
I know there are things I could do to fight it, but motivation is another one of those things going down. f--- it, f--- everything.
Pushing 46, can confirm. Literally just got that thing that screams "maybe you need bifocals not contacts" where nothing close quite comes into focus... basic response is "fuck it, fuck everything" like you say.
> Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50
How do you mean? I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime".
For example, ELO ratings of Chess players tend to decline in their 30s[1]. For NBA players, their "prime" is typically the late 20s, with performance declining in their 30s.
Note that I wrote around 50, not after 50. Middle age is usually defined as the 40 to 60 range (or more recently held to be slightly later, 45-65). That is the period when people flourish. That is certainly not when people are "elderly." Interestingly the Ancient Greeks used to report the time when one flourished rather than their date of birth.
Neither extreme athletic performance nor ELO rating are measures of normal flourishing (I'm surprised one would bring up such abnormal elements; the lives of NBA players and elite chess players deviate very far from that of a normal human). I wonder how the kind of argument you offer, and that of the sibling "olympus" comment, feeds into reported ageism in SV and related tech companies.
Are you equating "flourishing" with "being in your prime"? Because I don't consider those to be the same.
Being in your prime is about peak potential. And sure, the age at which you have peak potential varies by activity. My early 20s is when I have the _opportunity_ to be the best sprinter I'll ever be. That's my prime. But say I first take up sprinting in my late 30s, and put in my best sprint time at the age of 40. I might be "flourishing" at that point, but in no way does it mean I'm in my prime at age 40. The 20 year old version of myself, with the similar conditions and preparation, is simply physically capable of sprinting faster.
Certainly, there are activities where your peak potential is greatest in middle age. I'm not disputing that (however, I'm highly skeptical that memory and physical ability are in their prime past age 40).
> I'm surprised one would bring up such abnormal elements; the lives of NBA players and elite chess players deviate very far from that of a normal human
I mean, where can I get performance statistics for "normal people"? If we're talking about maximizing potential, why not look at the ones putting in the most effort toward that goal?
Also, the linked ELO ratings were for 179,221 "registered FIDE players". They weren't just the top-100 or even top-1000 players. Yes, this is biased toward people who play chess - but where else can you get the data?
I'm curious what you think a "normal human" is? Do you think any of those 179,221 chess players are "abnormal"?
To be in one's prime means to be productive, rational, social, and in good health. Not past one's prime, not "elderly" -- which is the particular term I was responding to.
I don't understand your (and others') focus on peak extreme-athletic performance, or peak chess-playing ranking. Why is it problematic to assert that people in their middle age are normally healthy, fully functional, flourishing human beings?
I wonder about the ELO thing how much is age and how much is priorities changing (kids, families, the realisation that outside the top15 there isn't much of a living in playing vs teaching/writing which takes you away from teaching etc).
Anand just won the rapid chess world championship at 48, Korchnoi was top-100 into his 70's.
Not saying there isn't some decline just that it may not be as pronounced as the raw ELO figures would indicate.
> I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime".
I are not going to be part of a professional sports franchise. But at my age (59) I know more than I ever did, and I have no serious physical problems.
"no serious physical problems" is far from "in your prime"... and you might know more things, but your ability to learn has significantly declined. That's just the nature of aging.
The measure of flourishing is not how fast one can dig holes, nor is it how quickly one can study new APIs.
Knowing useful and effective ways to act, and acting accordingly; understanding and undertaking long-term, purposeful courses of action; and fully integrating new knowledge with vast, existing knowledge -- are key to flourishing. This doesn't end at or decline with the start of middle age.
If you think humans flourish only in terms of physical prowess or memory retrieval, you have very poor standards. To call someone who is middle-aged "elderly" does fit with your criteria, and with reports of ageism in tech companies.
I hope you're not involved in any way in hiring decisions, or in other activities that involve evaluating people's abilities, performance, achievements, or potential.
> If you think humans flourish only in terms of physical prowess or memory retrieval, you have very poor standards.
Nope, I just think you have poor reading comprehension - you are replying to a comment that said exactly the same thing. Flourishing (vibrant, active, enjoying life) != being in one's prime (peak performance).
Nothing wrong with that. My parents are 60+ and flourishing past their prime - their decades of experience are invaluable.
