First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://www.oculus.com/blog/first-look-at-the-rift-shipping-q1-2016/ <comment><USER2> I was able to get a demo of the Crescent Bay prototype (hand-built tech demo of the consumer version) at PAX East this year. I've also tried the DK1 and DK2.

If you've been playing with the DK1 or DK2, the consumer version is fundamentally better. Do not assume you know what the state of the art is until you've gotten your hands on a preview. I don't know exactly what the resolution differences are, and I don't care - it's not the relevant spec to compare. It's gotten to the point where resolution is "good enough" to trick the mind and anyone who says otherwise is bikeshedding. They've gotten the screen door effect under control. With head tracking implemented and drift solved as a side effect, two huge problems are gone. Their low-latency head tracking stops people from feeling nauseated like they did with DK1. I could barely stand without wanting to vomit after playing the Doom demo. The only game I could play for any length of time was a simple platform jumping game called Rift Rush.

I don't know what they consider their largest hurdles, but from my perspective the hardware/software problems are solved for now and they need excellent made-for-VR content. When done well, the effect is stunning - in one of that calmer, more exploration-oriented demos I just stared at the light glinting off a metal bowl as I moved around it for at least 30 seconds.

But the difference between "good" and "mind blowing" was often the result of things that nobody has thought about before. In the movie-like demos, sometimes I missed things because I had my back to the action. In VR movies, the user controls the camera and needs to be told where to look; that's a problem nobody making movies has ever faced before. Even Pixar's demo suffered from this - the action was too spread out for the screen's field of view.

<comment><USER3> I never got to use Crescent Bay, but I've got a DK2 at home. Resolution for me will be a non-issue once I can read smallish text on virtual signs/displays. I'm thinking mostly for games like Elite Dangerous and other simulators like that, where a cockpit display is part of the game. Do you think the crescent bay prototype is at that point? (this might be a naive question as it's been awhile since I've looked up anything on the newest prototypes)

Otherwise I'm with you. Positional tracking was the thing that really made it awesome for me. There are so many tiny head movements that you make when you're looking around; if positional tracking isn't pretty much 100%, then it just feels wrong.

<comment><USER4> I agree about the smaller text but at the same time, it's been more of an issue for me when the content wasn't created primarily with DK2-class hardware as the target. Elite is great and I feel like Frontier owes Oculus money because myself and just about everyone I know who got a DK2 also ended up buying Elite but it's still primarily designed for a monitor.

If you're targeting a game or other application for VR (and assuming generally similar hardware to DK2 or whatever), there are a lot of design decisions you can make to improve the experience. Something as simple as using larger text goes a long way. Color choices help, as does less focus on lists and menus in favor of gaze-based control.

Then there's the general stuff like "not trying to shoehorn that awesome first-person-shooter style that was so great on 2D screens into VR". Yeah, it's neat to look around in a FPS-style game but whereas seated or less frenetic experiences are gorgeous and immersive, asking someone to run around in first person while actually sitting in a chair is nauseating. I've seen all the omni-treadmills and other workarounds and I appreciate the way people are trying to engineer solutions but I feel like it misses the point. Some things just work well in VR while other things require a lot of tradeoffs or addons.

<comment><USER3> I think Minecraft is a good accidental example of what you're talking about, especially on the DK2.

It's natural pixel style makes you not notice the resolution at all, and all of the text is large, and easy to read. The cube nature also really makes me aware of the 3D, which is nice.

It doesn't do anything to deal with the FPS/nausea problem, though I don't react very poorly to playing an FPS in the rift as long as it uses a keyhole style control with the mouse (half-life 2 is a prime example of that).

One other thing I like about minecraft on the rift is that it really shows off the true blacks you can get with the OLED display. It smears a bit, but it's still really rad to look into a mine shaft and have it fade to actual darkness (not sure if the consumer version is planning for OLED off hand).

I definitely agree that it'll be cool when game shops start really thinking about building their games for VR, and that they can work around VR weaknesses.

Weird scaling is another issue, when something was scaled to look right from 2D on a screen, but drops the ball in VR. I played Skyrim using Vireo and the mountains ended up looking like glorified hills, heh.

Another funny issue I had was playing Alien Isolation. VR made it super obvious that looking out through a spaceship window into "space" was actually looking at a black wall about twenty ft away.

Looking forward to wherever VR goes, either way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Argh, the title of the post has the exact same amount of info as the article does. I was hoping for details on the changes to the hardware different from the current dev kit.

Or more importantly, I was hoping to read why I should still care when Valve's offering is planned to come out _this_ year and is supposedly the bee's knees.

<comment><USER6> I would like to know what kind of computer and graphics card I need to make this thing work. Yeah, a cheaper VR headset pricepoint is nice, but not if you're just unloading all the expensive components onto the buyer via a $1200+ PC purchase. Not to mention, as someone who suffers with motion sickness with traditional games, how will the Oculus work for me? Have they solved this riddle? Will they ever?

This is also why I see Sony having great success with its Morpheus headset. The PS4 is cheap as-is ($399) and if you already own one, its a no-brainer to go with their product. I'd be really surprised if Oculus ever goes mainstream. It still looks like an uber-nerds hobbyist toy like a, say, 3D printer, which technophiles have been telling us for years would be mainstream by now and in "every kitchen."

Carmack isn't stupid. He didn't sell to Zuck because he thought he'd be moving 10's of millions of product every year. He sold to Zuck because he knew that the shipping date doesn't really change things for Oculus. Its still a very rough road to mainstream acceptance and economic competitiveness. I can afford $299 for the headset, but I'm not interested in buying a super gaming box to make it work. Nor am I interested in being a beta tester for a technology known to be a bit wonky, cause motion sickness, have questionable 3rd party support, and Facebook ownership/integration/driver and API's TOS.

This is what on top of what Valve is doing, which may just steal Carmack's thunder as they have everything they need to make this work: the store, no relationship with unrelated businesses like social networking, large customer base, community goodwill, game publisher relationships, a decade plus in the game selling world, etc. If both the Valve set and the Oculus set go for $299, I can't think of any reason to even consider the Oculus.

<comment><USER7> You'll need a "gaming rig". That's the simplest way I can put it. Don't buy an "ultrabook" or an "all in one" or some $500 laptop to use Oculus. Whether it's a PC (cheaper) or a notebook, it needs to be gaming-focused one.

In terms of specs I'd buy a GPU with at least a 3TF performance, and even that it's probably going to be "mediocre" for the next 2 years. 2TF should work, too, but might not last you too long, especially for new games. Obviously, the higher the performance the better, so if you can afford to pay thousands of dollars for a gaming rig knock yourself out. It will last longer.

You might also want to keep some accessories in mind, such as the Virtualix Omni or those full body controllers, which could cost you an extra thousand dollars.

<comment><USER6> Everyone I know has a gaming rig of some type, but not anything that can do 1080p per eye at 60fps per eye, which is where this stuff actually starts to work correctly and what Oculus is designed to use (less motion sickness, better 3D illusion, etc).

I don't think a lot of people interested in this technology realize how much hardware they will need to buy to make this work. You're looking, at minimum, a $400-500 graphic card. Assuming you have the CPU heft to handle everything else. If not then there's another $400-500 for the chasis, mb, high-end cpu, high-watt ps, fast 8-16gb of RAM, etc. And that's for a fairly mid to low-end VR box. That could be $1000 out of pocket right there on top of whatever the Oculus costs.

<comment><USER5> Well, it depends entirely on your fidelity of course.

For example, just last night I played a game of Supreme Commander. That was one of the first games I know of that supported dual monitors, and it does it well. But I digress- the point is that I had it maxed out on two 1080p monitors and it was running at 60fps the whole time.

So yes, you will need a big beefy expensive graphics card to play the newest AAA games maxed out at 60fps. But you could always just turn the settings down, or play older games. I'm also willing to bet that when the VR market takes off later this year/early next year, that the indie scene will heartily embrace it. And typically most of those games run fine on "normal" hardware.

<comment><USER6> >For example, just last night I played a game of Supreme Commander.

I'm not buying a VR headset in 2016 to play a game from 2007.

<comment><USER8> If you're not happy with first generation then don't buy it. I guarantee that the second and third generation will be even better. Some guy whining on HN about a first generation product adds zero value. That first generation iPhone had lots of critics too, and rightly so.

Bottom line is that a real VR product ships in less than 12 months.

<comment><USER6> The Vive ships earlier, so Oculus will actually be second fiddle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's mind blowing how fast we've got to realistic virtual reality with Oculus Rift and graphic techinques like global illumination (e.g., see "Unreal Paris" demo: [https://youtu.be/Y6PQ19BEE24](https://youtu.be/Y6PQ19BEE24)) and inevitably forthcoming real-time raytracing.

We live in a truly incredible time.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm so impressed by their restraint on waiting until the product was right before going to market.

<comment><USER11> Too many people getting motion sickness could kill the VR market for years.

<comment><USER12> It already did, two decades ago

<comment><USER13> See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy#Reception](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy#Reception)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> from my experience with the dk2 i felt their biggest issues were:

      hard plastic frame,
      eye tracking,
      blood circulation

the hard plastic frame limits the variability of the distance between two pupils. Pupillary distance is ~62mm for women and ~64mm for men(i). With obvious variance even within the sexes. Just hardcoding a distance is a limitation that requires the brain to work harder to massage the inconsistencies causing added strain. ( the images appear to show lenses that are now even unable to be removed, one potential solution i saw was the possibility of buying lens kits for offsetting the lens to your specific pupillary distance )

the lack of eye tracking really disrupts the experience. Look around the place you are in right now, but keep your eyes straight only moving your neck as you move from object to object. The movements are awkward and feel like a retrofuture automaton. Now look around casually and notice how often you utilise the movement of the eyeball. ( unable to tell at this moment if there is any extra hardware in the mask )

as for the blood circulation if i wore the dk2 for more than 20m and took it off to look in the mirror the area around my eyes was white for want of blood and highlighted by the red marks where the mask was pressed against my face. ( the images show the same face pressing frame )

i had many more issues with the dk2, but these three seemed to me to be confirmation proofs that the direction digital stereoscopy is going in is innately flawed

a constructive alternative would be digital stereoscopy that uses eye tracking to measure pupillary distance and the pupils' direction vector in order to create a scene ad hoc, or virtual reality through direct sensory manipulation

(i) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillary_distance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillary_distance)

</comment><comment><USER11> Everybody talks about VR in terms of games but I wonder if it might be possible to create a productive desktop using a VR helmet. Surely it would be easy to emulate having N monitors but I bet you could do better.

<comment><USER15> Yes, it will be. Here's a fairly fun demonstration of exactly that.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-7J5OaSag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-7J5OaSag)

<comment><USER16> There's a small subreddit devoted to the idea of programming inside VR. Several examples there.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/hmdprogramming](http://www.reddit.com/r/hmdprogramming)

<comment><USER17> These ideas does not provide any novelty.

There is potential to re-imagine programming, but I have no clue how.

Also, keyboard input is not very compatible with HMD. I guess brain interfaces are the most promising, but why can't we just tap into my pinky's nerve and train my brain to use that as output?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Honestly, I'm really excited about all these headsets. But I can only afford to buy 1 (day care) To me Vive seems more immersive from a gaming point of view, and hololens seems more practical. I bought a DK1 a few years ago, and developed a few things for it, but it wasn't super compelling for me (yet).

I spend more time in my basement woodworking these days then gaming. So i'll probably buy a hololens, I want to design furniture in 3D while seeing how it will look in the spot that it will eventually "live". I know AR != VR, but if I can only have one, i'll choose AR.

</comment><comment><USER19> Here's hoping they fix the issue for those of us with wide heads. I've spent a fair amount of time tinkering with my DK2 to get a good experience with my wide IPD of 73mm. I bought some 3D printed lens holders that widen the lenses, and they helped quite a bit. Without them, my view was blurry in one eye which caused a fair amount of discomfort.

I'm wholly onboard for the headset, the DK2 is a fantastic experience (barring the experience of setting it up and launching applications, which is totally fixable.) Can't wait to see the consumer edition.

</comment><comment> steve-benjamins Recently I finally got to try VR— the Samsung Gear VR.

I was a bit disappointed (my expectations were ridiculously high going into it though). I was surprised to find (1) the resolution to be quite pixelated and (2) visible black strips of the hardware bordering my viewport.

After usage, both the resolution and the visible hardware were not issues. They "melted" away and I was "immersed".

But I'm curious: is the Rift expected to be higher quality than Gear in this regard?

<comment><USER20> Yeah the Samsung Gear VR was like a mobile consumer version of the DK2. The Rift (CV1) will be a definite improvement over the Samsung Gear VR in terms of tracking, audio, and resolution (resolution hasn't been released yet but it is assumed).

<comment> steve-benjamins Awesome— thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm very excited about this release.

In my opinion, they've taken a bit too long, and now they have a high likelihood of being dethroned between now and their release date (e.g., Magic Leap, Holo Lens, Gear VR, etc.).

<comment><USER22> Have any of those companies announced a release date for any of their products though? As far as I am aware, the rift is still (or will be) the first consumer accessible VR product.

<comment><USER23> Technically, the Gear VR has been available to consumers for months and months already, though since it lacks head-tracking and desktop-quality graphics it's not quite the same thing. In addition, being what Samsung calls an "innovator edition", it has not been fully marketed to consumers at large (e.g., on buses and billboards).

However, John Carmack hinted in a recent keynote on mobile VR[1] that the next version of Gear VR would be promoted widely for all consumers and that it would come out along with the next major Samsung phone release, presumably the Note 5. The Note phones get updated every September.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB_u3FvUTQc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB_u3FvUTQc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> how far away will tactile simulation gloves come into market?

imagine gripping in-game items, being able to control them as you would with real objects. squeeze to fill the glove pressing back, feel cold/warmth, feel textiles.

Combined with increasingly photorealistic games + VR...we are at the mouth of uncanny valley...it's going to be a very interesting decade.

Maybe we live in a future where people completely abandon their real world life in favor of a virtual one while the appratus in the real world just keeps you alive, very much like Matrix...

</comment><comment><USER25> Time to upgrade my PC. What is minimum spec graphics card needed?

<comment><USER26> I would quite honestly pay for N64-grade graphics if delivered with head tracking and ultra-low latency. I strongly believe that as in literature, most of the immersion experience is in the mind. Oculus technology (+3D sound) really helps to get the _computer out of the way_ of the story.

<comment><USER25> > ultra-low latency

Agreed. Wonder what they'll suggest? Prob one with tons of fast memory. I read that most devs are using the new Nvidia 980s because the latency is less.

<comment><USER27> A $550 video card on top of the price of the device itself? If that is the case, I'm going to have to wait for a device to come out like Hololens that can stand on its own.

<comment><USER28> If you are a gamer, you should already have that to play current gen games at max settings. I'm on $1000 worth of GPU right now for 4k, and the 4k screen itself was about $500.

Don't make it sound like Oculus is more expensive than what gamer already have to pay to get the best experience.

<comment><USER29> You're not wrong re: best experience, but your $1000 of GPU + $500 screen puts you in like the top 1% of gamers. Most ppl are gaming on cheap rigs, laptops, etc. It's possible that FB/Oculus are trying to make something that will only appeal to the big spending "prestige-rig" gamer set, but I'd think that they would be trying to make a product that will be compelling to a bigger audience.

<comment><USER28> You can't really expect to run two 4k screen along with head tracking and all the other VR magic on a laptop or on a $100 graphic card.

That being said, I'm sure you could play games on the lowest setting without the need for $1000 worth of GPU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can't wait to preorder! I'm holding out for the consumer edition since the DK1 and i'm very happy to hear it's coming soon! :)

<comment><USER31> Soon? Q1/2016 is still up to 10 months away. It's going to be a painful wait.

<comment><USER28> That's not even a year. It's barely more than the time for a pregnancy. Pretty soon for our first consumer contact with virtual reality if you ask me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Very much looking forward to the end-product being released, let's hope it lives up to the hype!

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm genuinely surprised we didn't see a DK3 in crescent bay before commercial release.

Great news!

</comment><comment><USER34> Can't wait for this experience! Good luck towards E3.

</comment><comment><USER35> Linux support when

<comment><USER36> They currently have a Linux SDK on developer.oculus.com, so looks like Linux support now, for the hardware they've already shipped. Third-party games are a different matter, but that's less inside their control.

<comment><USER35> I think utilizing the SDK is a bit different than a run time (Which both OSX and Windows have)

<comment><USER36> For the OSX and Windows versions, the SDK package actually includes both development tools (headers, etc) and the runtime; the only reason to offer a package which leaves out the development stuff, is to make the download smaller, which seems unimportant.

You can get a sense of where the Linux support currently stands by looking at share.oculus.com, where third-party developers can submit their games and demos, and you can filter the list by which operating systems they support.

<comment><USER35> Oh okay, thank you :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> 4K fingers crossed.

<comment><USER38> They can't even render 1080p with low enough latency and high enough frame rate currently. Are you going hooking your Occulus up to a super computer?

<comment><USER39> It would obviously be an upscaled resolution in games. 4k is for the screen door effect.

4k is necessary for readable text, ability to watch HD movies and using virtual monitors. Currently the resolution is too low for any of these, as in it works but not good enough for being practical.

<comment><USER31> There is no correlation between the screen door effect and resolution.

Source: Palmer Luckey [https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2rayri/hint_that_cr...](https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2rayri/hint_that_crescent_bay_is_2560x1440/cnedqfk)

<comment><USER40> Yeah, I'm pretty sure I read that the screen door effect were even less visible in the Sony Morpheus prototype, even though it had less resolution than the Crescent Bay prototype.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Would be really excited but then I remembered facebook owns this and I got sad.</comment>


Apple's cheats to showcase Safari's HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://www.osnews.com/story/23411/Apple_s_HTML5_Showcase_Isn_t_HTML5_Blocks_Other_Browsers <comment><USER2> Which technologies that Apple is showcasing on this page are unavailable, in principal or practice, to Firefox and Chrome?

Because if all they're doing is showing how you can get 80% of what Flash would give an iPhone app using HTML5, then the fact that they're blocking Firefox is irrelevant. Firefox and Chrome users don't need to be sold on HTML5. We'd be getting upset about browsers being blocked from... an advertisement.

On the other hand, if they're showcasing concepts that _can only work in Safari_ , then they are indeed doing what Microsoft did in the '90s: attempting to "embrace and extend" the HTML5 standard by setting expectations that can only be met using Apple's nonstandard technology.

I would be surprised to find out that Apple is doing the latter. Their efforts with HTML5 have seemed to be in good faith.

<comment><USER3> >Which technologies that Apple is showcasing on this page are unavailable, in principal or practice, to Firefox and Chrome?

Then they're not really supported HTML5 features, they're just safari features, and should be removed from the showcase.

<comment><USER2> Why yes, that _is_ a more concise way of saying the same thing I said. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> You're welcome. I couldn't tell we were saying the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The title to this post is intentionally misleading and sensational. Using the word "cheats" is cheating and trolling.</comment>


Daniel Suarez - Daemon: Bot-Mediated Reality - <AUTHOR> http://fora.tv/2008/08/08/Daniel_Suarez_Daemon_Bot-Mediated_Reality <comment><USER2> I was hoping his next book was out. If you're looking for a interesting book to read that while technically futuristic isn't stupid, definitely check out Daemon. <http://www.amazon.com/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez/dp/0525951113>

</comment><comment><USER3> I would really like a transcript or synopsis of this. I couldn't find one via the link. Is one available?</comment>


Haversine Formula - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula <comment><USER2> And when Haversine isn't accurate enough: Vincenty's method. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenty%27s_formulae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenty%27s_formulae)

Also, another reference for both methods with calculators! Vicenty: [http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong- vincenty.html](http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-vincenty.html) Haversine: [http://www.movable- type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html](http://www.movable- type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html)

<comment><USER3> If you need a library to do this, check out GeographicLib. It's written by C. F. F. Karney the same guy who developed an algorithm and wrote a scientific paper about improving Vincenty's formulae for performance and fixing issues at nearly antipodal points.

It has good implementations in C++, C# and Javascript.

[https://geographiclib.sourceforge.io/html/](https://geographiclib.sourceforge.io/html/)

<comment><USER4> Minor point but I know c# has a GeoCoordinate class into the framework Dlls. It also contains methods to calculate distance between points. Many .net Devs I've worked with didn't know about it. I think it came out first in .net 4.0.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My greatest ever accomplishment was implementing this formula in a spreadsheet. I still have it! Here's the cell formula:

=ACOS(COS(RADIANS(90−Selector::$Lat))×COS(RADIANS(90−N2))+SIN(RADIANS(90−Selector::$Lat))×SIN(RADIANS(90−N2))×COS(RADIANS(Selector::$Lon−O2)))×6371

("Selector" is a table title, I seem to remember - this is an Apple Numbers spreadsheet.)

6371 is a magic number which gives the result in kilometers.

<comment><USER6> 6371km is the radius of the earth :)

</comment></comment><comment> man-and-laptop I just derived the spherical law of cosines that's the foundation of this formula using quaternions and Sympy. The quaternions were modelled as 4x4 matrices.

The philosophy is that you can treat trigonometry as a triangle construction problem. You give me the specs of a triangle, and I can use physical tools like compasses, protractors and rulers to construct your triangle. This is similar to using trigonometry, except without any algebra involved, just construction tools. You can also use this philosophy to derive the algebraic formulas. When it came to formula derivation, I used the quaternions to simulate the physical construction, and I got out the formulas.

<comment><USER7> The last figure on this page [http://www.vias.org/calculus/07_trigonometric_functions_01_0...](http://www.vias.org/calculus/07_trigonometric_functions_01_06.html) really has that character (in 2D).

I wish trigonometry in secondary school had been taught more like this (geometrically) because it would have been good preparation for vector calculus, among other things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [https://openflights.org/](https://openflights.org/) uses the Haversine formula (and much more!) to not just compute distance, but plot great circle flight routes on a world map:

[https://github.com/jpatokal/openflights/blob/master/js/great...](https://github.com/jpatokal/openflights/blob/master/js/greatcircle.js)

There are a lot of interesting edge cases regarding routes that cross the dateline, the North Pole, etc. Most of the code was taken from Movable Type's incredible library of lat/long code:

[http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html](http://www.movable- type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html)

<comment><USER9> Openflights is one of my very favorite websites. Thank you!

How else would I know that I've travelled 2.7x to the moon in the last decade.

[https://openflights.org/user/dankohn1](https://openflights.org/user/dankohn1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I learned the hard way the unit of measurement you use for R when calculating distance between two lat,long coordinates is what you get out. So if R is in meters, you aren't calculating the distance in miles. Hehe...should have paid attention in math class (to be fair to myself, American math education is horrible).

<comment><USER11> Always worth doing the dimensional (units) analysis first

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> MySQL also offers this natively which allows for speed improvements compared to calculating it yourself in a script: [https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/spatial- convenience-...](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/spatial-convenience- functions.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> I added a Haversine operation to CyberChef[1] last year. Very useful equation in a very useful tool.

[1] [https://gchq.github.io/CyberChef/#recipe=Haversine_distance(...](https://gchq.github.io/CyberChef/#recipe=Haversine_distance\(\)&input=MzUuOTI1ODYwLCAtODYuODMyODkwLCA1MS41MDMzMjMsIC0wLjExOTU0Mw)

</comment><comment><USER14> I had to implement the Haversine distance for a data mining home work as well. We were given a list of the worlds capitals and we had to use openstreetmap api to get the latitudes and longitudes.

Then we had to implement hierarchical agglomerative clustering by hand, only using the dendrogram function from scikit-learn.

</comment><comment><USER15> When you're evaluating datastructures to quickly get the nearest neighbor in constant time, and you're dealing with actual longitude and latitude, you really need to be aware of this so that you don't accidentally pick something that only works for euclidean distances.

<comment><USER16> If you just want nearest neighbor, I would recommend storing floating point ( _x_ , _y_ , _z_ ) coordinates, and using Euclidean distance in 3-space. (Or rather, the square of distance Δ _x_ ² + Δ _y_ ² + Δ _z_ ²; skip the square root.)

If you want to save storage space / bandwidth, you can use the stereographic projection onto a plane and then cut the precision of the floating-point numbers. Stereographic projection / inverse stereographic projection only requires 1 division per point.

Latitude/longitude is quite an inefficient and cumbersome way of representing points on a sphere, though it's convenient if navigating using the stars.

<comment><USER17> > Latitude/longitude is quite an inefficient and cumbersome way of > representing points on a sphere

Using lat/lon absolves you of storing projection metadata

<comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude#Geodetic_and_geocentr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude#Geodetic_and_geocentric_latitudes)

"The definition must be accompanied with a specification of the ellipsoid." etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yes it's very handy.

I use it in my Captain's Log[0] application for Elite: Dangerous players, to show the distance your ship is to a target Lat/Lon location, amongst other handy navigation features.

Written in Python, using Qt4 and Pyside.

[0] [https://captainslog.scarygliders.net/user- manuals/captains-l...](https://captainslog.scarygliders.net/user- manuals/captains-log-2x/#overlay)

</comment><comment><USER19> Of course there's a JS library for everything [https://github.com/njj/haversine](https://github.com/njj/haversine)

<comment><USER20> It is a one line formula but has 186 stars and 10 contributors to it. I don't get the hype!

<comment><USER21> Well, left-pad[0] has over 1000 stars and 17 contributors.

0\. [https://github.com/stevemao/left-pad](https://github.com/stevemao/left- pad)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember googling for this formula for doing a data mining homework in which I was given the start and end points of a taxi in geo-spatial coordinates.

<comment><USER22> Unless you're taking a taxi across the continental US, there is very little difference between Haversine and Euclidean distance calculations. Haversine is more computationally expensive. Haversine isn't even the actual distance travelled on gridded roads. Haversine is probably not the answer to what you are looking for.

<comment><USER23> If you do this, you still need to do a one-time correction for the length of a degree longitude at a given latitude, or you get weird behavior even at small distances (and it gets weirder the closer you are to a pole). We learned this the hard way when our "k-nearest places" query was returning point clouds which looked like ovals!</comment></comment></comment>


Google updates causing huge changes in search rankings - <AUTHOR> https://www.seroundtable.com/big-google-update-rolling-out-now-august-10th-29922.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is an unprecedented change. We notice across the board reductions in how we ranked for all terms we're tracking. Lots of people seeing the same. Anecdotally, seems big companies are being prioritized while smaller businesses, blogs, affiliate sites are being penalized.

<comment><USER2> > while smaller businesses, blogs, affiliate sites are being penalized.

I feel some sympathy for the first two there, and am quite pleased the third category might stop showing up in my searches so often...</comment></comment>


Toyota Patents Cloaking Device to Make Car Pillars Appear Transparent - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/13504/toyota-patents-cloaking-device-to-make-car-pillars-appear-transparent <comment><USER2> Title needs to be changed. This is _not_ a patent, it is a _patent application_.

Note from the linked document: "United States Patent _Application_ 20170227781" (emphasis added).

A correct title would read "Toyota Applies for Patent for Cloaking ..."</comment>


Don't Worry about Apple - <AUTHOR> http://www.cringely.com/2009/01/don%E2%80%99t-worry-about-apple/

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh no you groan - not another Steve Jobs/Apple story - but this is quite nicely balanced and sane.

There is plenty of talent around to keep Apple innovating in it's corner of the market - just look at the new Palm phone for instance. Apple will thrive this time around I am sure.

<comment><USER2> It isn't the talent that is the worry. It's the morale. <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3paulgraham.com+morale>

PG says, "Startups live or die on morale." I would say _any_ business lives or dies on morale.</comment></comment>


"Strong" stack protection for GCC - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/584225/

<comment><USER2> I know everyone is a bit tired of hearing about the new Mill CPU, but one of the things we've done with the architecture is to have the hardware track return addresses. This is not only much faster and efficient; it is also _immune_ to these kinds of attacks.

There's an upcoming "Security" talk which will cover lots of other ways we've worked to improve the fundamental protection offered by the CPU, but the stack is covered in the Memory talk: [http://ootbcomp.com/topic/memory/](http://ootbcomp.com/topic/memory/) and ootbcomp.com/topic/introduction-to-the-mill-cpu-programming-model-2/

<comment><USER3> _I know everyone is a bit tired of hearing about the new Mill CPU_

Well, damn, I must be late to the party. The Mill just caught my attention a week ago, and I'm far from being tired of hearing about it.

Thank you for sharing what you can.

<comment><USER4> Agree -- I've seen only one article on it so far and found it fascinating.

<comment><USER5> Check out [http://ootbcomp.com/docs/](http://ootbcomp.com/docs/) if you want more on the Mill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wish all distros will start compiling all its packages with a _consistent_ policy to enable at least some level of stack protection (like Ubuntu and unlike Debian).

<comment><USER5> Doesn't Ubuntu take most of their packages from Debian?

<comment><USER7> Ubuntu uses the packages that have been maintained and integrated by Debian, but they don't necessarily take the binaries. They compile it themselves, and that means they can specify whatever compile options they want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How would the computing world be, if compiler and OS vendors weren't required to keep on fixing the issues caused by C's widespread into the industry?

<comment><USER9> If C did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

There is CPU-bound code out there, where every cycle saved in an inner loop equates to hours of improved runtime or thousands of additional client transactions/second. Safer languages have made great strides in the kinds of dynamic profiling and optimization that can equal the performance of optimized C/C++, but there remain real penalties in startup and profiling time.

<comment><USER7> I think some things like null terminated strings etc are not inevitable in a fast language like C. There were definitely design mistakes that cost security and don't directly affect performance significantly.

<comment><USER10> If anything, null-terminated strings are bad for performance as often as good for it. One example that comes up reasonably often: comparing strings that have different lengths but common prefixes is fast with length-tagged (Pascal- style) strings, but expensive with C-style strings, because you have to scan both strings until you find either a string end, or a difference. So instead of quickly answering "not equal" after one integer comparison, you could end up doing hundreds (or thousands) of byte comparisons in degenerate cases. Anything that calls strlen() also ends up doing extra work.

<comment><USER11> Well, as far as kernel is concerned strings aren't a problem. Outside VFS they don't exist. Inside VFS everything is chopped into usually short pathname components which are hashed for dcache consumption. On x86_64 hashing is not byte-by-byte anymore.

Fixing pathetic macro system and type system (if that qualifies at all) would get rid of many many bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't this the same as what the OpenBSD guys added to their GCC fork? I think it was called ProPolice.

<comment><USER13> According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow_protection#GNU_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow_protection#GNU_Compiler_Collection_.28GCC.29), it was IBM that developed ProPolice, and this is an evolution of a reimplementation by RedHat.

<comment><USER12> Gotcha - thanks for the correction. Checked my sources and it was W^X they implemented at the same time as ProPolice and indeed it was IBM who built that.</comment></comment></comment>


Tech News: The world's first LTE capable smart watch 'LG Watch' - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdiginews.com/2015/02/the-worlds-first-lte-capable-smart.html#.VO6pNEiqJs0.hackernews <comment><USER2> Yet it is still not IPX8 rated. Why are manufacturers making watches that cannot survive the day to day normal use any other good watch can?</comment>


If 'semantic web' annoys you, read on... - <AUTHOR> http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2010/03/if-semantic-web-annoys-you-read-on.html

<comment><USER2> Did this article just open with "Semantic web makes most people shut down" then follow with "Here's a basic overview of Semantic Web"? That doesn't make any sense.

Also, a press release style blog post about a semantic web company isn't really a quality post for HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> One paragraph of 12 was about a company, and given the particular company, it would be like writing an introduction to advertising on the web without mentioning Google. The rest was about the new 'branding' for the semantic web community.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not a great article. Might be more productive to play around with DBpedia (<http://wiki.dbpedia.org/OnlineAccess>) a bit. Semantic web tech is good for mixing data from multiple sources but be prepared to do some manual work.</comment>


The Pilcrow, pt. 2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2011/03/the-pilcrow-part-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ShadyCharacters+%28Shady+Characters%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

<comment><USER2> "Christianity was the prototypical religion of the Book..."

Er, that would be Judaism.

<comment><USER3> If you read _Misquoting Jesus_ by Bart Ehrman, makes the case that writing and copying were much more central to early Christianity than other religions of the time, including the Jewish tradition out of which it sprung. Certainly study and interpretation of the Talmud is a strong and significant aspect of Judaism, but Ehrman argues that there is a qualitative difference in the approach of Christianity to "The Word".</comment></comment>


Minesweeper Online - <AUTHOR> http://www.emmettnicholas.com/2009/04/22/minesweeper-online/ <comment><USER2> Oops, found a "bug".

Create a large, very sparse minefield say 200x300 with only 20 mines. Click just about anywhere, watch as its solved instantly.

To be fair, this condition was impossible in the windows version but there it is.</comment>


Amazon Selects LA for $5B HQ2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/la-watchdog/15166-amazon-selects-la-for-5-billion-hq2 <comment><USER2> I think you should change the title to include something along the line of "According to sources: " or "Unconfirmed".

</comment><comment><USER3> "The State has also agreed to waive the burdensome CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) for this massive development."

Well that's disappointing.</comment>


SpaceX just filed a request to run 30k more Starlink satellites in orbit - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614566/spacex-just-filed-a-request-to-run-30-000-more-starlink-satellites-in-orbit/ <comment><USER3> Discussion from reddit suggests that this might not be 30k more satellites, just multiple radios on 1525 satellites.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/dge0xk/we_nee...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/dge0xk/we_need_to_talk_about_starlink/f3cbwva/)

</comment><comment><USER4> This was likely done to discourage any further investment in competing networks like OneWeb, Telesat, etc.

It'll probably work, especially since SpaceX is also the only network operator that can control launch costs.

<comment><USER5> Are launch costs "out of control"? Cannot other networks' cubesats hitch a ride with bigger payloads?

<comment><USER6> Which launch company would they go with? SpaceX? Even then, they are splitting costs of the rocket (most expensive part) and fuel, while SpaceX themselves can just pay for fuel on an already flown booster. SpaceX are also paying cost, rather than retail prices.

Sure, there are a few more costs, the point being that SpaceX has a supreme cost advantage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is probably a speculative application. It looks good to investors ('look at the potential profit!')

<comment><USER8> I think SpaceX is private and has healthy positive cashflow, so this shouldn't be a factor?

<comment><USER7> It isn't so obvious to me that they have positive cashflow.

Their main costs will be employees, and not having a full launch schedule will have a dramatic impact on the financials.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would be silly to think this will actually come to fruition - <USER2> satellites would represent a 3000% increase in the number of active satellites in LEO, which is already by far the most congested orbital altitude.

That said, it would be quite exciting to see all those launches, and the end goal is a worthy one.

<comment><USER10> Imagine an area of the size of surface of the earth. Put 30k objects of the size of motorcycle on it. There are currently something like 200 million motorcycles in the world. Seems like plenty of space, doesn't it?

But wait, you don't actually need to restrict yourself to one spherical surface. You can place your 30k sattelites anywhere in a Earth's-surface-sized spherical shell that's 400 miles thick. You could literally put those 30k sattelites in a single straight line above some point on the earth, and still have 350 miles of shell thickness left.

Congestion on low Earth orbits is really a non issue, especially if the satellites are designed to deorbit after their useful lifetime.

<comment><USER9> I should have been more clear. By "congestion", I was not just considering the number of satellites, but the number of artificial objects in total regardless of size, which by many estimates is in the millions.

<comment><USER3> Which makes it even clearer that this isn't an issue... we're not adding 3000%, we're adding 1% (assuming "millions" = 3 million).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This will be the end of android.

GNU/Linux is already available on handhelds that can connect to traditional networks but this will make things trivial. All android will be is a runtime that will slowly die as google attempts to weaponise it.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is complete nonsense. There is not enough demand for all those satellites and capacity, so it's very hard to understand why they are making such a filing.

As of today, there is probably ~ 1 Tbps of usable capacity in space (wordlwide). With such a big constellation they could provide 100x this capacity, but who is going to buy it? How are they going to compete with fiber-delivered Internet in big cities? They cannot offer the same QoS, so you do not want space delivered Internet if you can have it through terrestrial networks.

<comment><USER13> Not enough demand? The 3 or 4 billion people without internet don't get to participate in the conversation?

Big cities could benefit if a lot of the load on existing networks shifts to Starlink. Better service for everyone.

Not everything is simply competition / winner-take-all in market economics, even if that's the tendency.

<comment><USER14> Not to mention, that cell towers may be a lot cheaper to operate over Starlink.

<comment><USER15> Are you sure?

Keep in mind current cell phone coverage is spotty, with many unserved or underserved areas, and towns where Verizon is clearly better than AT&T, or vice versa.

Running that kind of cell tower network might be cheaper, but running a cell phone network that spans every inch of the globe would be an engineering and logistics feat that would almost be impossible to profit off of.

Even maintenance-wise, servicing a cell tower requires keeping a bunch of contractors around to drive to drive, fly, or even boat to remote areas, and climb a hundred feet once they get there. With starlink, they can just piggyback replacement satellites on customer payloads.

Also, there are around 4 million cell towers in the world to achieve spotty coverage, whereas starlink is targeting 40k satellites for global coverage. I'd have to believe that launching 40,000 similar payloads via similar methods has huge vertical integration advantages over the extremely heterogeneous approaches we use to put up those millions of towers.

<comment><USER14> Sorry, I think I was misunderstood. Cell towers that work over starlink (i.e., use starlink as an uplink method) may be cheaper than cell towers that use a landline for an uplink.

So the ideal situation would be Starlink for remote areas, and in medium to higher density areas put up towers that talk to Starlink, then can speak to local receivers using terrestrial radio technologies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which stack do you use for stream processing? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Spark and Kafka are nice. Beam looks really cool but I haven't actually tried it.

</comment><comment><USER3> heron</comment>


Ask YC: Blogging software for App Engine - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone know of any blogging software that runs on App Engine?  I am in the process of moving my personal site (which includes an integrated WordPress blog) to App Engine.  Everything is moved over but the blog.  I know I can link to an external blog, but I would much rather have it integrated into my site and be able to customize it and muck with the code.<p>Does anything like this exist yet, or do I need to make my own? <comment><USER2> I haven't tried it yet, but you might want to take a look at this: <http://bloog.billkatz.com/></comment>


My Imposter Cure - bob-fornal https://dev.to/rfornal/my-imposter-cure-4midhttps://dev.to/rfornal/my-imposter-cure-4mid <comment><AUTHOR> Link seems to be accidentally pasted twice.</comment>