Idea: to reduce littering in ATMs - <AUTHOR> http://josephjayanth.com/2013/04/idea-to-reduce-littering-in-atms/

<comment><USER2> Switch banks. Go to one that will e-mail you a receipt as an option and learns your preferences for frequently-accessed options. "Deposit check, mail me the receipt with images". "Withdraw $40 cash, mail me the receipt". Both are buttons I can get right on the PIN screen.

Yep, instead of hitting OK, I can just tap a button which will log me in, do the transaction, spit out the card, and do whatever I asked it to do.</comment>


The enormity of choice at a Chinese electronics market - <AUTHOR> http://ch00ftech.com/2012/09/10/china-is-awesome/

<comment><USER2> Interesting market, though it is not uncommon in major cities of China. You will find comparable ones in Beijing, Shanghai, etc</comment>


Telegram: You Can Build Your Own Powerful Communications Channel on Telegram - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-you-can-build-your-own-powerful-communications-channel-stern/ <comment><AUTHOR> How I use Telegram channel (broadcast communication) to promote the local tech industry, have delegation meet local experts, connect people and create a real impact.

I voluntarily launched and now manage this channel with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.</comment>


Nerd Immunity - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/ncasenmare/status/1257352434428645379 <comment><USER2> Well, it's cute, but an average R value makes no sense, if so called influencers on Social Media spread their believe to millions quasi- simultaneously.

<comment><USER3> Or a president / prime minster who can broadcast to the whole country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The only problem with this idea is self-organization of people into echo chambers, since misinformation doesn't spread randomly and uniformly like a disease.</comment>


Lenovo Considering a Retro ThinkPad Model - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lenovo.com/en/blog/retro-thinkpad-time-machine/

<comment><USER2> I find it almost impossible to replace my x61 tablet. 4:3 aspect ratio, awesome keyboard, trackpoint, no trackpad. That is perfection right there. All they need to do is copy that design, but eliminate as much bezel as possible (so it'd be more of a 14" display with a 4:3 ratio).

<comment><USER3> Ditto. My x61t was a workhorse at University and beyond. I love the the 4:3 aspect ratio. There is something about the extra vertical space that is hard to get across with some people. It's like the freedom felt with tall ceilings.

I was appalled at the state of 16:9 small screen laptops. They just felt claustrophobic doing anything but watching video.

Over time I swapped out the hdd,and upped the ram. User serviceable parts ftw! It served as only computer till 2010 when I finally built a desktop after not being comfortable with other laptop choices. Still served only laptop until finally being replaced with a Surface Pro 3.

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you think about the Surface 3 ?

<comment><USER3> I really like it. It's built solidly, and the kickstand in the back is very flexible, can be used in many positions. With the magnetically attached keyboard cover, I've been able to use it on my lap without many issues.

Since the keyboard/Surface doesn't have a sturdy hinge, you can encounter some issues if balancing everything on a small surface. This is the only real negative that I've encountered to tell people about.

For me, it's an acceptable laptop replacement.

It also makes a nice tablet. Size, weight, inputs are all good. I use the pen regularly for doing photo touch-ups in Lightroom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After having had my rMBP in service for the third time during its Apple Care (2 logic board changes, one top case change for the battery), I'd really be in the market for something simple and serviceable again. The most important factor is the screen however. Does lenovo nowadays have anything that comes close to retina screens?

</comment><comment><USER5> I am in if it comes with Retro durability and quality as well. That is what made the older ThinkPads awesome not just pretty looking logos.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like the majority of the ports to be on the rear of my laptop, monitor ports, Ethernet, at least one USB and power for sure. Pretty hard to find these days, I'm using t430s but don't know what is next. Maybe this retro think pad.

I did miss the numpad when they removed it.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand why Lenovo publicly states, that it would be really nice if Lenovo went and did this design instead of what they are currently doing.

Why go out and say "this is the design we wish we could do" instead of doing it?

</comment><comment><USER8> Not sure I trust them to produce a computer free of crapware.

<comment><AUTHOR> You know the drill: erase the hard disk, install your own system. Even if you run Windows, that's the best thing to do to avoid all the crapware (even the harmless one) that gets pre-installed by default of most computers nowadays.</comment></comment>


Google Claims 'Quantum Supremacy,' Marking a Major Milestone in Computing - <AUTHOR> https://fortune.com/2019/09/20/google-claims-quantum-supremacy/ <comment><AUTHOR> This was expected at least 3 months ago: [https://interestingengineering.com/googles-quantum- processor...](https://interestingengineering.com/googles-quantum-processor- may-achieve-quantum-supremacy-in-months)

Additional sources: [https://gizmodo.com/google-says-its-achieved-quantum- suprema...](https://gizmodo.com/google-says-its-achieved-quantum-supremacy-a- world-fir-1838299829)

(paywalled) [https://www.ft.com/content/b9bb4e54-dbc1-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1...](https://www.ft.com/content/b9bb4e54-dbc1-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17)

<comment><USER2> >This was expected at least 3 months ago

Here's the Quanta report they quoted: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/does- nevens-law-describe-quan...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-nevens-law- describe-quantum-computings-rise-20190618/)

I remembered seeing that and still feeling a bit skeptical. It seems like you could perhaps achieve "quantum supremacy" and yet not have quantum computing devices that are actually "useful".</comment></comment>


Berkshire sold $390M worth of Delta and Southwest shares this week - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-sold-390-million-delta-southwest-shares-2020-4 <comment><USER2> Possible reasons to sell these stocks:

      - Likelihood of bankruptcy is increasing
      - Portfolio needs to be rebalanced
      - Company has stopped paying out dividends

Others?

<comment><AUTHOR> Can't imagine dividends have much importance for Berkshire - they'd rather money be re-invested in the business as a rule.</comment></comment>


C Preprocessor Trick for Implementing Similar Data Types (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://liw.iki.fi/liw/texts/cpp-trick.html <comment><USER2> I find this technique to be one of applications of X Macro pattern[1]. It's a very effective way to get around the rigidness of C language, but the price is sometimes you have to look at pre-processed source code to make sense of it. For gcc, this can be generated using -E flag.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Macro](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Macro)</comment>


Ask HN: Using Factorio as visual programming, refactoring, and design tool - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I'm playing around with the idea of having developers I work with play Factorio for a little while as a good intro to design, implementing, and refactoring.
The idea that Factorio is visual programming keeps growing on me, and that the visual and game play feedback provided by a spaghetti base design that only you really understand and can extend is very similar to programmers reactions to legacy code in the workplace.
Needing to rip up your base and then re-lay it down as you learn more about the game play mechanics (aka become a better programmer) feels similar to refactoring for me. There is a sense of well it works now, why not just add on another wing instead of doing "it right".
Building small components that you can link into each other and reuse is almost the core mechanic of the game, and is also a core tenant of building reusable software.
Lastly, and I might be stretching here, the visual environment can be likened to TDD or at the very least a short feedback loop. When you take an action you have to deal with the consequences, and reap the benefits immediately which if you squint is like writing tests to exercise your API/objects as you write them, making sure that when you change your API/objects/whatever you feel the change as quickly as possible.
Is there any validity to this? Am I going to ruin their productive lives by introducing them to Factorio? <comment><USER2> > Am I going to ruin their productive lives by introducing them to Factorio?

Yes most definitely, but they will enjoy it!

That said, I do agree that you can look at designing a factory with a mindset of writing good code, and refactoring that code as you modify the factory. I'm not sure if this will provide a benefit to existing programmers, I could see it being useful for explaining those concepts to new programmers - perhaps as part of an IT class in school though.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's something I'm wondering about too.

In a professional setting is the time better spent practicing refactoring katas and going actual development techniques to make code better vs playing a game.

I think using it in a CS101 or learn to program class would work well.</comment></comment>


Oculus Rift S - Stefan-H https://www.oculus.com/rift-s/ <comment><AUTHOR> They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it _will_ lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about ruins Skyrim VR)[1].

Small wonder Brendan Iribe left Facebook over this[2]. They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. Really hope Valve steps up this year with a decent headset + the Knuckles controllers. Nothing wrong with building headsets for the more casual consumers but why can't _someone_ release a decent gen 2 headset with the upgrades that everyone has been wanting.

1: [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/hands-on-with-the- new...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/hands-on-with-the- new-399-oculus-rift-s-more-pixels-zero-cameras-better-fit/)

2: [https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/279364-oculus- rift-2-canc...](https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/279364-oculus- rift-2-canceled-co-founder-leaves-facebook)

EDIT: After a little more reading it looks like the Quest (their equally priced all-in-one headset) has a higher resolution and a physical IPD adjustment. What the hell are you even paying for with this? You get a worse headset for the same price that lacks all the onboard hardware?

<comment><USER2> On the other hand, there are a lot of things that were improved:

\- Slightly higher resolution (1080×1200 per-eye -> 1,280×1,440 per-eye)

\- Inside-out tracking

\- Guardian can be set up via video passthrough

\- More comfortable halo head strap (better weight distribution, more surface area)

\- Wider lens sweet spot

\- Fewer god rays (better lenses)

\- Less pronounced screen door effect (better lenses, RGB-stripe subpixel layout)

\- Low-latency stereo-corrected video passthrough (Passthrough+)

\- Headphone jack

\- Slightly longer cable (4m -> 5m)

Not a huge upgrade of course, but that's probably why they called it the Rift S and not the Rift 2.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not saying you're wrong, but we're on year 3 of this brand new tech and it's "kinda better, kinda worse". Think about the iPhone in 2007 vs 2010. They can call it whatever they like; it's still an utter disappointment, at least to a gamer like myself. If we're going to get to a point where VR actually feels like virtual reality then _someone_ is going to have to push the envelope, and it clearly isn't going to be Facebook.

<comment><USER3> The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago.

Price, PC-Specs, and ridiculously complicated setups are the reason, why VR hasn't taken off yet. The Rift-S helps with all of those issues.

It makes some smart tradeoffs, so that it is accessible to more people.

<comment><USER4> > The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 > years ago.

This is wrong. All of the other things you mention matter, but at the end of the day I _cannot_ buy a compelling VR experience at any price. VR itself still needs to be improved before all of those other things matter.

VR is incredibly underwhelming at this point, regardless of price. I'd say it's still a few years away from being good enough I'd want to buy it, and I'd expect to have to pay over $1000 for that pleasure when the time comes (ignoring the cost of the top-of-the-line gaming PC to accompany it).

And that's only talking about the actual technology in the headset, that's not even discussing the lack of good content.

And many (maybe most) people still get sick when using VR for more than an hour, so the argument it's "good enough" is absurd.

<comment><USER5> What have you tried so far? I bought myself a Rift during the last Black Friday and am very pleased. BeatSaber and Eleven Table Tennis alone make it worth.

<comment><USER4> I tried the Oculus Rift at Facebook HQ with all of the fancy dongles, including things I'm not allowed to talk about.

I've also tried the regular HTC Vive.

Both felt like a gimmick, and the Vive made my girlfriend nauseous after a few minutes.

I'm a big believer in the potential of VR, but the current options do not impress me. I think it's still a few years away for someone like me, and still another 5+ years where it starts to become mainstream (largely due to cost and lack of content).

<comment><USER6> VR Dev since 2014, here.

The content is what makes people sick, not the hardware (these days). I haven't gotten sick in VR since Rift DK2. Been using the Vive since. No sickness in The Lab. Recently tried playing Everest VR -- queasy due to lots of flying, slow camera movement. Apollo 11 was a lot better, but still had some iffy swooping camera moves.

Basically, you can not make the same kind of game for VR that you would for non-VR, but developers keep trying and they end up making players sick.

Finally, there's a problem with maximizers vs. satisficers and VR. I would say that it's not about comparing specs and buying the "best" device -- although maybe that's a problem of price point. Instead of looking for flaws, allow yourself to suspend disbelief. This requires good content.

Every single game and experience in Valve's "The Lab" is excellent. On Rift, Robo Recall is excellent. Very few games reach this level of polish (graphics, audio, HCI).

Look at the original Star Wars (A New Hope). The special FX are shite by today's standards. If we were just to compare bullet points of features, it would be garbage. Let yourself be transported.

<comment><USER7> People get sick mostly because of the neurological issues associated with keeping eyes focused on objects at fixed lengths even though they are perceived as far away in the VR world.

Vergence-accommodation conflict:

[https://medium.com/vrinflux-dot-com/vergence- accommodation-c...](https://medium.com/vrinflux-dot-com/vergence- accommodation-conflict-is-a-bitch-here-s-how-to-design-around-it-87dab1a7d9ba)

<comment><USER6> If this were true, why can I stay in The Lab for hours, but I get sick in Everest VR in minutes, on the same hardware? Why did the dozens of VR devs I have talked to get sick on 2014-2015 hardware, playing tech-demos, but they don't on 2018 hardware, playing games designed for comfort?

Also, lack of positional sensing (versus angular) on mobile VR devices is a much bigger contributor to discomfort.

I'm not sure why you're so keen on vergence accommodation, but it seems that you're focusing on a tiny effect, when the large effects are known.

Just because there's little in the peer-reviewed literature, does not mean that this is poorly understood by practitioners.

<comment><USER7> I come from a neuroscience background hence my bias. It's the fundamental way in which we focus on objects in the real world. It is not functioning normally at all with a headset on.

No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.

<comment><USER8> That sounds pretty anecdotal for a scientist.

<comment><USER7> Not a scientist. I'm a developer who has been working in the neuroscience field for 15 years, specifically with brain stimulation devices.

I'm not saying this qualifies as any sort of degree nor was I saying you should count my anecdotes as facts.

It is simply my belief that the vergence-accommodation conflict needs to be solved before VR will be adopted by the masses. I think vergence-accommodation neurological process should stay coupled as it does in nature to provide a completely natural feeling and non strained experience for the user. The research here is scant. Perhaps someone is aware of some ongoing research on this topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Announced a day after the HP Reverb, which has most of the features of the Rift S but 2160x2160 per eye.

[https://www.roadtovr.com/hp-rever-hands-on-impressions- pixel...](https://www.roadtovr.com/hp-rever-hands-on-impressions-pixel-packed- new-bar-for-windows-vr-headsets/)

<comment><USER2> It's also $200 more than the Rift S and only has 2 tracking cameras instead of 5. Not a bad product by any means, but unless resolution is your main concern I wouldn't consider it superior to the Rift S.

<comment><USER10> Resolution is more important than the other changes on the Rift S.

<comment><USER11> This. Until I can read text on the thing VR feels DOA. I got the original rift and it now sits in my closet collecting dust because the resolution is about 1/2 or maybe even 1/4th of what it needs to be to really be compelling. They need to up the resolution, figure out foveated rendering, improve the FoV and get me some dang gloves or at least a VR-ready keyboard (can see the thing in vr like you see the hand controllers). I care about these things far more than ditching the cord, inside out tracking (I'm not sure I want 5 cameras looking at everything in my room any time I am strapped in) or anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been a VR dev since 2014, and market-share / adoption is a huge problem.

To a first approximation, you can not make enough money to run a studio in VR, even 5 years after DK1.

Ontario, Canada has a great system of grants for game developers, but they have basically stopped funding VR titles, because they don't make any money.

All of the people I know who went off to found VR studios are trying to survive on service work, rather than making custom IP. Either that, or working as loss-leader departments in larger companies.

It's worse than indie development, if such a thing were possible.

So ... yeah ... bring on the users while there are still some VR developers left.

<comment><USER12> I know sim racing is somewhat of a niche industry but the demand for high end VR is absolutely there:

NoVRNoBuy was pretty much the only regular comment you would see when Codemaster's was hyping Dirt Rally 2.0

So much so that this is the changelog from Assetto Corsa's latest release:

Assetto Corsa Competizione - Early Access v0.2 \- Fixed "No VR no buy" ... [1]

There are about 100 threads on Dirt Rally 2.0 echoing the same [2]

This is a community that spends $500 on a steering wheel and $500-$1000 pedals are always out of stock [3][4]

That doesn't even include the $1000 direct drive wheels [5][6] or the handbrakes, shifters, triple mount displays, and $500-1000 dollar rigs [7] I won't even get into the motion rigs...

[1] [https://steamcommunity.com/games/805550/announcements/detail...](https://steamcommunity.com/games/805550/announcements/detail/1700564528976573193)

[2] [https://steamcommunity.com/app/690790/discussions/0/17354661...](https://steamcommunity.com/app/690790/discussions/0/1735466157769817790/)

[3] [https://heusinkveld.com/heusinkveld-march-stock- update/?v=75...](https://heusinkveld.com/heusinkveld-march-stock- update/?v=7516fd43adaa)

[4] [https://www.protosimtech.com/](https://www.protosimtech.com/)

[5] [https://www.fanatec.com/us-en/wheel-bases/podium-wheel- base-...](https://www.fanatec.com/us-en/wheel-bases/podium-wheel-base- dd1-usa.html)

[6] [https://augurysimulations.com/products/](https://augurysimulations.com/products/)

[7] [https://sim-lab.eu/product/p1-chassis/](https://sim- lab.eu/product/p1-chassis/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a current Rift owner, this seems like a bit of a lateral upgrade: \- IPD is fixed. \- LCD display \- Can't track hands behind you \- Narrower FoV

It seems this is comparable to the many WMR headsets already in the market. I would hope that the simpler design helps bring down the price though, I could see this overall being cheaper to manufacturer.

<comment><USER14> > Can't track hands behind you

This is a personal deal-breaker. The rest I can live with.

I get it. There's much less hardware involved, there's much lower manufacturing costs, those savings can be passed down to the consumer, bringing us closer to that hypothetical VR mainstream moment. I agree we need more headsets with this technology.

I've "grown up" with full tracking, though, and I'm used to it. It adds an additional layer of presence. I hope we don't get stuck with this downgrade on _all_ future devices. Add Sixense to inside-out tracking and I'd be outright sold.

That being said, I already own the Vive with its lighthouses, so I wonder if I could use the Vive controllers with inside-out tracking HMDs. I guess that all depends on how much drift inside-out tracking suffers from, and how feasible it is to calibrate the two platforms.

<comment><USER15> Using 3 sensors you can track full 360°, it works very well with my setup

<comment><USER15> By bad, I just saw that the trackers are now built-in. I wonder if they will allow adding additional sensors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Higher resolution and built in tracking and only 400. Probably going to buy. Someone convince me not to

<comment><USER17> Is there actually any software compelling enough to make the hardware worth the expense? After the wave of interest that followed the release of the original Rift petered out, most developers seem to have dropped VR like a hot rock...

<comment><USER18> If you like playing Poker, PokerStars VR is a blast. It's free (There's not even an option to pay money, and you only play with fake money)

I've spent over 100 hours in it. Having the player interaction makes it so fun. Desktop online poker just feels like playing with bots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would love to trade all these monitors for a virtual workstation. Every time there's new VR tech I hope that it's possible. 1280x1440 is definitely an improvement. I'm patient.

<comment><USER2> I think if you're looking for a monitor replacement you're going to need to wait for foveated rendering. That's when you'll start seeing mainstream headsets with ultra-high-PPD displays. Maybe another ~4 years or so.

<comment><USER20> Not actually needed. Getting high enough res to replace monitors with small fonts does require a big increase in resolution, _but_ rendering a virtual desktop requires a lot less computation per pixel than rendering a game with lighting and shading. Current-generation consumer GPUs should be sufficient, if the panels and optics get good enough.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, but you're not going to be seeing a big push for higher PPD displays until after all the other pieces are in place to support that technology for gaming. The market for monitor replacements isn't big enough to drive that kind of change all on its own.

<comment><USER21> I think this market is hugely undervalued. As remote work gets normalized, remote workspaces will draw increasing investment to regain some of the fidelity of meatspace but with the efficiency and cost savings of remote work, and VR is poised to be central to this industry as soon as someone builds the tools.

<comment><USER22> Sounds like a dystopian nightmare where VR goggles becomes the new ass-in- seat.

<comment><USER21> Completely possible and likely, but it's also possible to build a workplace culture where VR just replaces video calls and screenshare presentations with people huddling around a virtual conference desk and being able to pair program or show each other their screens, for an hour or two at a time instead of 8 hour office workdays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hmm, I have a hard time understanding what advantage these all in one devices have over the various VR lens devices for random phones.

That said i'm not really impressed with the basic rift device I have. Mostly because the core software seems like garbage. The first blue screens I've seen in over a decade were caused by it. Then there are all the non fatal problems like the fact that the software apparently wasn't tested on machines that go into standby regularly. Then there are the weird USB discovery issues the hardware/software has (the software wants everything plugged into different controller ports but can't seem to figure out the USB topology correctly 1/2 the time, meaning sometimes it works then it decides not to work unless the machine is rebooted/etc).

I would say it generally works better than some of the stuff I used in the 90's but the resolution is strangely lacking given the price of the thing and other devices on the market.

So that said, the core problem of VR making people nauseous definitely hasn't been solved with the basic rift. Pretty much everyone I've demoed it to gets sick on games/demos which involve first person perspective. OTOH, there are some pretty cool 3rd person games (witchblood, moss, etc).

<comment><USER24> You have to try a 6DOF system, it's a totally different ballgame.

<comment><USER25> I don't know much about all those and I experienced VR (other then the Avatar movie) for the first time this weekend at my friend's place on his PSVR. I really enjoyed Moss and still felt ok after about 45 minutes. I tried a kind of light sim demo with crappy 1995 looking graphics afterward and I thought I was about to vomit 2-3 times while "flying".

Anyway, what would be the difference between the PSVR and a 6DOF system?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> John Carmack and his friends made it clear that they have no interest in the PC being a first class VR platform when they tossed Brendan Iribe to the curb. The Rift-s is a big fuck you to all of the hardcore early adopters that made the Rift a reality.

I skipped gen-1 thinking gen-2 was right around the corner; unfortunately, three long years later the future truly looks like a "race to the bottom." VR is starting to feel like a cheap trick instead of something that promised the future of gaming - a toy that just collects dust on the shelf after playing a handful of crap mobile games.

The state of the industry from my perspective:

1\. The VR industry seems to think PC gaming is dead

2\. Oculus hasn't released better HMD in three years:

\- Worse inside out tracking despite the need to be tethered to a PC anyway

\- A downgraded refresh rate of 80hz after claiming 120hz was the sweet spot

\- A single panel and a downgrade from OLED to LCD with no ability for IPD adjustment

\- Is outsourcing work from Lenovo instead of doing in-house RND

\- Scrapped headphones despite saying it was a critical feature of the OG rift

\- Rumored to have a slightly worse FOV than the OG Rift's already small FOV

\- Attempting to roll their own walled garden store

\- Owned by Facebook

3\. HTC hasn't released a marginally better headset in three years:

\- Lenses are garbage despite the better display

\- Future headsets are adopting inside out tracking despite it having worse performance than lighthouse

\- Owned by HTC

\- Terrible support

\- Attempting to roll their own walled garden store

4\. Pimax doesn't seem to have the manufacturing or support chops to deliver despite knowing exactly what the hardcore PC gamer wants

5\. Valve can't seem to release anything - ever.

What a shit show.

<comment><USER26> People get so angry whenever VR is brought up.

Are there not other companies besides Oculus to serve the higher-end VR market? What's wrong with a company focusing on a mainstream market?

The waste of talent?

<comment><USER27> Well, HP's new version of the Reverb jumped to a 2160x2160 per-eye resolution.

If Pimax can get their shit together, the 4K resolution and ridiculous FOV is promising.

I think the ultimate problem is that the higher-end market isn't willing to spend what it would require to build a sufficiently-good headset right now, nor are there many home gaming computers that can realistically pump 8+K low latency, high FPS graphics. There are many millions of people who might spend $500 on a standalone headset that is good enough to play beat saber, though.

<comment><USER12> The market for a high end HMD is pretty much anyone that already has no problem spending $1,000 on a video card. That is a lot of us but it isn't big enough for a company like Facebook or HTC. My fear is pushing crap at $500 instead of gold at $900 will leave a stigma on VR that will take another decade or more to wash off.

The reverb actually looks great but the tracking is a flop.

<comment><USER28> I think of the kid factor. My kids can't tell the difference between the gear VR, PSVR, and high end setup. Or they just don't care. All they want are fun games. That leaves the gear VR for things like rollercoaster sims and 360 pov video of the same, and PSVR for Beat Saber and Job Simulator. No interest in the high end gold level setups

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> For those with VR headsets of any kind: how often are you using it? Are we there yet with VR? If not, is it the hardware, the content, or both?

For now, I'd define "there" as at least 0.5 * time spent on console or PC gaming per week.

<comment><USER30> Tracking is a joke with the Rift v1 (consumer version). Decent for a few hours and then randomly everything gets all screwed up, requiring a tracking reset which sometimes doesn't even fix the issue. It's way too involved to set up, and even following the instructions it takes sometimes 20 minutes to finally get the tracking sensors synced with the controllers and your System. I found that really frustrating and made it prohibitive for anything other than killing time. Furthermore, for some reason it always makes me set it up from scratch even if I haven't unplugged the three different USBs (2x tracking, and one for the headset) needed to get the whole thing operational since the last use.

Echo VR is super super fun to play, as one concrete example, but I'd say the Rift is still not good enough other than as a toy to show off to people. The driver updates are also absurdly huge. I didn't use it for a month and I had a 14gb driver download (pretty sure it wasn't any game/app updates)

We are far away from VR being even in the comparable to general purpose "everyday" computing IMO.

<comment><USER31> Something is definitely wrong with your setup. You should not experience any noticeable tracking errors on current hardware.

Some combination of a bug, strange setup, or bad environment is going on here. Maybe you have a large mirror or pane of glass around your setup? Lots of things can go wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think it's very clear that Oculus engineering efforts are dedicated to standalone devices like Quest rather than PC VR headsets. Which makes sense if you want to get 1 billion people using VR.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm glad inside-out tracking is becoming the norm. Significantly easier to setup and still had pretty good performance (although on the 2-camera Windows MR models you can't reach behind your back but whatever).

I think Windows MR is significantly underrated just for this fact. My question is, should I get this or just buy the Samsung HMD today?

</comment><comment><USER34> I really wish _one_ of these VR headsets allowed direct use as a display without their special drivers, and provided tracking data without using their SDK.

<comment><USER35> That's an option, but then we wouldn't have nice things like Asynchronous Timewarp / Spacewarp unless we want to shift the burden of doing that onto the rendering application. As someone who worked in VR before the Compositor was a thing, I welcome it with open arms. It's just easier for everybody.

That said, it'd be nice if you didn't have to log into some account to make it happen.

<comment><USER34> > but then we wouldn't have nice things like Asynchronous Timewarp / Spacewarp > unless we want to shift the burden of doing that onto the rendering > application.

Or onto common libraries and frameworks. And I can live without such features until then; if I don't use the SDK and I miss a feature that's in the SDK, that's on me.

> It's just easier for everybody.

Except people building Open Source VR applications.

<comment><USER36> There's Monado: [https://monado.dev/](https://monado.dev/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> More info [https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-s- official/](https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-s-official/), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vtryRHVg_I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vtryRHVg_I). Lower refresh rate, LCD screen, no foveated rendering seem disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER38> A significant portion of people (most maybe?) who are interested in this would like to see the specs and not some Apple inspired dumbed down web page with little actual substance about the product. Even apple gives you prominent access to tech specs. This page tries to get your email address three times. Very poor.

</comment><comment><USER39> One of the biggest barriers to consumer adoption of VR seems to be the cost.

Is there a reason why it doesn't make sense for the manufacturers to do a subscription service? Seems like everything from phones and consoles to game streaming subscriptions is the trend (and makes sense).

If nothing else, it can help increase distribution and awareness -- at the end of the day, more people using the devices is probably gonna kick off more content creation and economies of scale to produce cheaper/better hardware.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER40> I doubt if there's a strong market for VR even if a great headset was $50. Do people who are not enthusiasts really want to immerse themselves like this? A good chunk of the population doesn't seem interested even in game consoles. I imagine a subset of them are interested in VR gaming. Outside of VR gaming, there's little mainstream content designed for VR.

<comment><USER36> Potentially the audience for VR could be bigger than the audience for consoles as it opens up entire categories of non-gaming applications. Experiential, narrative, educational, social etc.

I've had very positive responses to VR from people that have never had any interest in traditional gaming.

Of course - whether this interest could be translated to purchase is a different question. Ease of use and cost would help as would a wide and diverse library of mainstream content.

I think a good stepping stone would be pervasive VR in schools, libraries, galleries etc. to get people accustomed to the medium.

<comment><USER41> Except for experiential, why aren't those categories already open on consoles?

<comment><USER42> Marketing?

Because consoles offer literally nothing over desktops for that, and schools, libraries, etc already have desktops?

<comment><USER41> true... what does VR offer in those categories over desktops?

<comment><USER42> Better IO?

There's almost certainly educational value in being able to view (and sometimes interact) with a 3d model of a cell/organ/body/physics simulation/3d chemical model/...

<comment><USER41> it's different... not sure it's better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm thinking Rift S has an awkward position. It's not a gen 2 for those who already jumped in for Rift. So no buying there. It doesn't lower the bars for those who hasn't jumped in as neither headsets or graphics cards are getting cheaper. Then where is the market share?

Maybe a trade-in program could work. For the rift owners they get the upgrade for a discount. Then for the newcomers, certified pre-owned Rifts for a low price.

<comment><USER43> I guess Rift S has lower manufacturing cost because it can share some parts with upcoming Quest. The same tracking, the same controllers. And since they are already heading in that direction, personally I'm curious to know the possibility of combining Quest and Rift S, or PC and standalone VR. My guts tell me it's possible. I'm excited about the idea of two in one VR, with which I can watch a movie in bed before sleep, or show it to friends at their places', and plug in a PC to play a full blown action game. Two headsets and two sets of controllers are really too much for these purposes. I don't mind two libraries of games/apps though. Windows 10 and XBox One are already sharing content. It should be possible for VR too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I invested in a HTC Vive Pro when it came out, it's looking to be a good investment as these Gen 2 (I should say Gen 1.6) VR HMDs are pretty lack luster. Pair it with the Wireless Adapter, it would be difficult for me to change to inside out tracking and move back to a wired connection. Granted, I've sold some internal organs and first born child to obtain all of these things.

</comment><comment><USER45> I've used a Vive once (a guy at work brought one in). Little sensors at the corners of the room, headset, hand grips. It was really neat. How does this rank next to Vive? I've been thinking of getting one (my kids would love the 3-d "drawing" app I tried). I have a good PC, should I be looking at getting the Rift S? A Vive? Any suggestions would be great. Thanks!

<comment><USER46> I worked in a VR lab at my university for a year before graduating so I got to experiment with a bunch of the current headsets (no Rift S though since it was just announced obviously).

My personal take away is if you are going for the maximum immersion, have space and the money, go with the Vive or Vive Pro. The Rift (likely applies to Rift S as well since they are so similar) was more comfortable than the Vive for me at least and I liked the controllers more but the tracking quality was not as solid especially in even medium sized rooms. The visual quality on the Oculus is not quite where the Vive is either. Additionally the Vive is a pretty open platform so there are lots of third party accessories you can play with (once again if you can stomach the costs). I love using Vive trackers on my feet to track my foot motion so I could run in place in games to move. That kind of ecosystem doesn't exist for Oculus. Additionally Valve will likely release new controllers soon with full finger tracking (and then you could use your old controllers as Vive trackers)

<comment><USER47> The [https://www.vive.com/us/vive-deluxe-audio- strap/](https://www.vive.com/us/vive-deluxe-audio-strap/) makes a significant difference in the comfort of the Vive. But, it's still not at comfortable as the Rift because of the momentum caused by the front weight.

Between the cost and the PSVR-style hard headstrap (big improvement in comfort) I'd recommend the Rift-S strongly for consumers even though the Vive Pro is preferable for researchers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> If money is not an issue and you like cockpit games then currently the pimaxvr 4k is the best. Highest fov and highest resolution.

<comment><USER47> The Pimax 5K+ is winning all of the image sharpness reviews. The Pimax software is not winning any awards so far though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I bought an Oculus Rift a couple months ago, and this seems like a mixed bag. Per [https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-s- official/](https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-s-official/) :

> The original Rift used dual PenTile OLED panels for a total resolution of > 2160×1200. Rift S replaces this with a single LCD panel with a resolution of > 2560×1440...This provides a higher detail image with reduced "screen door > effect". However, you don't get the deep blacks of OLED since LCD displays > use a backlight.

Currently my #1 primary use of Rift is Elite Dangerous. One thing I don't want to lose in an upgrade is the inky blackness of outer space. Higher resolution would be lovely, of course, but how much higher is enough? I'd prefer to hold out for a next-generation headset with high resolution and OLED.

> The Rift used external USB sensors for positional tracking...Like the > upcoming Oculus Quest standalone, Rift S instead uses onboard cameras for > "inside-out" tracking.

This is a godsend. Onboard cameras could also potentially help with more...dynamic parts of your surrounding environment. By which I mean, I have cats. So this is not only a huge improvement, but it's something that I think can enable future improvements.

> No Physical IPD Adjustment

Since my IPD seems to be at the extreme physical end of the current Rift, I don't think faking it with software is gonna work for me :(

> The Rift featured integrated headphones....Rift S removes these headphones > and instead...[s]ound is piped through the side straps directly to your > ears. Having nothing against your ear makes sound feel more natural and lets > you hear others around you, but the downside is it can be heard by others in > the room and the audio quality may be lower. The headset also features a > 3.5mm jack so you can use your existing headphones or any you buy in future.

I think if I upgraded to Rift S, I would just use my headphones with it instead of relying on the side strap audio. I don't find the Rift headphones unnatural; they don't break immersion any more than having a massive visor strapped to my face.

In total, I really wish there was a Rift S+ that had the innovations of the Rift S but not the compromises. As it stands I don't feel a burning desire to upgrade, but I wouldn't rule out switching brands if a better headset had the improvements of Rift S but not the feature regressions.

<comment><USER2> It seems to me the Rift S is targeted more at people new to VR, not at existing Rift owners. The focus seems to be mainly on making setup easier, and improving comfort and ergonomics, not on pushing the boundaries spec-wise.

<comment><USER49> Yeah, it looks like Oculus is kind of conceding the high end of the market for now. What would probably be best is to wait another generation or two so I can get even higher resolution, picture quality, and FOV in addition to inside-out tracking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is a bit off topic, but I was wondering if anybody that was given an NDA'd preview of the technology before the first version was released has ever commented exactly what it is that they were demoed? What was it that made everybody so excited to write big checks?

</comment><comment><USER51> It's a gamble when you're on a Facebook product website, and you have whitelist certain scripts for the page to render. On other sites I can just block everything that has to do with Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER52> Looks great, nice to not need external trackers. Only thing missing for me, is the option for a single connection over usb-c, the so called VR-link present on some newer gfx cards.

</comment><comment><USER53> Here's your chance Valve.

</comment><comment><USER54> They promised Linux support and took money from people on that premise. Then, when they no longer needed us, they discarded us with empty promises of adding Linux support "in the future". Now they're shipping new products and - surprise - no Linux support. Oculus can shove it.

<comment><USER55> This! I bought the dev kit 2 due to Linux support. I don't do windows and now the stupid kit is just sitting, need to trash it. I'm never supporting Oculus again.

<comment><USER54> I ended up demanding a refund for mine, it arrived the same week that they announced they were discontinuing their Linux SDK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Does anyone here use the "courtside" view of NBA/NCAA basketball games? How is it?

<comment><USER57> I watched some examples with the PSVR (PlayStation 4 VR) headset. It isn't that good. I never felt like I was sitting in the courtside, but probably because the quality of the video isn't that good. Also, it is very umcorfortable to keep moving your head to follow the plays. In real life you only move your eyes, not your head.

<comment><USER58> Thanks (for question and response) I had been wondering about this.. guess I'll wait for the next generation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Quick question about Oculus setup: do you need to install some proprietary drivers, register on Facebook, run some additional "launcher" software to play games on Steam?

<comment> GuB-42 A bit more details:

\- You need an Oculus account but it doesn't have to be linked to your Facebook account, in fact you don't need a Facebook account at all. The exception is Oculus Rooms, a VR social app.

\- Obviously there are proprietary drivers. And only Windows 10. I think you can use it in Windows 7 but it is not recommended.

\- You don't need the launcher. You can even run bare executables if you wish. The Oculus software still runs in the background though. Also, the Oculus launcher supports "unknown sources", that includes Steam games.

\- Oculus have their own store, but you can buy your games elsewhere if you prefer. They have a few good exclusives though.

\- Steam games have different levels of support. Some games available on Steam can make use of the Oculus API. These work just as well as native games (because they are) but you may need a command line flag. Games using the SteamVR API also work well, but there may be a few minor issues, like the sound not switching to the headset automatically and a small performance hit. Games that don't officially support the Rift usually work, with maybe a few controller issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> No oled, no 8k, not even 4k...who wants this "upgrade"?

</comment><comment><USER61> I'm imagining a time when they can project enough resolution into your retina that can mimic a 4K TV at a distance constantly, that would be one of the killer apps

</comment><comment><USER62> No eye tracking? HTC ahead of the game there it seems

<comment><USER63> Yeah. I sold my Fove because no one is developing for this headset platform and after years there is no Linux or macOS SDK.

I really hoped the importance of this feature was so obvious that no next gen. headset would ship anymore w/o it. So I'm kind of flabbergasted Oculus just did that with the Rift S.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Maybe it's just me, but "Oculus Rift" has always sounded like a Harry Potter spell to rip someone's eyeballs apart.

</comment><comment><USER65> What's the best PC or laptop setup HN folk have found?</comment>


Good stuff you discovered in 2014? - <AUTHOR>

In the spirit of classic threads "What book changed your life in [year]?" or "Best book you read in [year]", I'd like to ask fellow HNers about good stuff you discovered in 2014.<p>Feel free to talk about books, software, hardware or any other stuff that has made a difference. <comment><USER2> I discovered armitage, which is like the Staples easy button for remote exploitation.</comment>


Are code bootcamps worth it? (Part I) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codejobs.io/post/98136687511/are-code-bootcamps-worth-it-part-i

<comment><USER2> I started a bootcamp yesterday (General Assembly Web Design Immersive, Los Angeles) and it seems as if it is a good program. It is a 12 week immersive focused on RoR, JS, MySQL and Git/GitHub. I expect to get a good job after completion in December.

I think it is all about what you put into it. I studied for 4-6 months and have probably logged ~ 500 hours of study. I worked through HTML/CSS, JS/JQuery and Ruby and can do basic things like make and animate a website, host it, use the command line and short cuts and Shell into my Raspberry Pi that I use as a test server.

Obviously, not everyone prepared as much as I did and some prepared more(or are smarter). I will def take that survey upon completion, but you as of now I feel like you certainly own your own success

<comment><AUTHOR> 100% with you there. You get what you give with this kind of program (or any educational experience really)

<comment><USER2> It looks like you are OP. If you are also the author of the post could you give me a bit of insight into what outcomes look like? What sorts of jobs are people getting? What do hiring managers think about codeschools, etc? I think it will be easy to get a job after, but maybe not a dream job.

If you have any experience with the LA market, what is a reasonable job to get, and what salary is a Rails/JS dev meant to get for a first job?

<comment><AUTHOR> Would be happy to share the data once we've completed the survey. Shoot me a note at firstname.lastname@example.com

So far, it looks like people are mostly taking junior developer or tech support roles.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Daala progress update - <AUTHOR> https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/update1.shtml <comment><USER2> Interesting to see they're also applying Daala to still images. It's a very different set of constraints and optimizations than video.

My first instinct was to wonder how it compared to Bellard's recently featured BPG image format [1], which achieves impressive quality at low sizes. Turns out you can check this by selecting "HEVC" in Xiph's image comparison, since that's the core method employed by BPG.

[1] [http://bellard.org/bpg/](http://bellard.org/bpg/)

<comment><USER3> And Daala is not fixed yet, so there's a good chance of further improvements a-coming. And it's likely to be relatively clean of patents and may enable a cross-everything royalty free implementation. But time will tell how MPEG LA will feel about that.

Edit: I'm also wondering, just in case any experts are around... with Daala's design seeming at first glance inherently more suitable for that kind of thing, lifting filters, wavelets and all, does that mean that we're more likely to see some hierarchical modulation/scalable video coding/bitrate peeling sooner rather than later?

<comment><USER4> _it 's likely to be relatively clean of patents and may enable a cross- everything royalty free implementation. But time will tell how MPEG LA will feel about that._

So that's the thing. I'm all for royalty-free encoders, but the only way to know if an algorithm is really royalty-free is for it to be older than the current maximum patent age. I believe that Daala is being designed to be royalty-free, but that's not measurable in advance.

There are other good reasons to support Daala, and explicitly building something to avoid royalty issues is certainly laudable (esp. compared to explicitly doing the opposite), but you can't just go and guarantee that something new is royalty-free, and it's frustrating to see the community make exactly those sorts of statements.

<comment><USER5> Where exactly did the community _guarantee_ that Daala was clean of patents?

<comment><USER6> I don't know if there has been any concerted effort to find possible patents, however daala is touted as patent free because its implementation uses different technologies from H264/HEVC, hence most/all of the MPEG-LA patents shouldn't apply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Charles Bloom has been discussing PVQ and Daala over on his blog. I am not an expert nor have I fully understood these articles, but they definitely look like interesting related reading.

[http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2014/12/12-16-14-daala- pvq-e...](http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2014/12/12-16-14-daala-pvq- emails.html) [http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2014_12_01_archive.html](http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2014_12_01_archive.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> I prefer the JPEG to the Daala in that one sample image; JPEG does have more artifacts, but Daala seems to preserve less detail.

For low-to-medium bitrate video that might be the correct tradeoff though.

[edit] H264 and H265 look like successive incremental improvements over JPEG in the direction I personally prefer; they reduce artifacts without losing detail.

<comment><USER9> I think the sky looks much nicer in Daala, but the bushes look much more blurred.

<comment><USER8> I agree; JPEG has more artifacts which is most noticeable in low-frequency areas, but preserves more detail in high-frequency areas.

All of the non-JPEG codecs seem to have greatly reduce artifacts in the low- frequency areas, but for some of them (VP8 in particular) it was at a significant loss of detail.

<comment><USER10> Apart from JPEG's blockiness and VP8's complete loss of detail, it looks like the main difference between codecs is which parts of the image have detail preserved. Some codecs preserve subtle sky texture at the expense of the trees, others do the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just to add as feedback to that: I much prefer the Jpeg render of 2 things in particular in that sample image. First, the brownish stone on the lower-right corner. As we as the car tracks. Regarding the car-tracks, the rough look in the Jpeg render looks more natural to me. The stone is though only slightly better in the jpeg. For the rest of it, Daala wins! I specially like the thin, tall leave-less tree on the left.

<comment><USER12> FWIW, I know that there is some research showing that students (over time) express a preference for MP3 compression artifacts. Something similar could be at play here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Applying an easing animation on the split screen comparison mouse drag was probably not the most user friendly idea.

<comment><USER10> Is it actually an animation? I assumed it was lag caused by redrawing each time the mouse moves and not ignoring queued mouse movements. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly.

<comment><USER13> 12:37:59 <+xiphmont> no, the lag is intentional.

12:38:11 <+xiphmont> it seems wrong... but exact tracking felt worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Subjectively, on that image VP9 looks nicer than Daala. (And x265 looks nicer than both.)

<comment><USER15> While in this case VP9/x256 may be better indeed (they seem to preserve higher-frequency details than Daala), beware of "looks nicer" when judging codecs in genreal. Codecs are not in the business of making nicely distorted images (they're not Photoshop/Instagram). They're supposed to keep images _as close to the original as possible_.

For example smooth images tend to be judged as "nice", but if the original had noise then smoothness is a distortion caused by lack of detail and deblocking blur covering it up. JPEG 2000 fell into the smoothness trap: it gave it better PSNR and nice low-bitrate examples, but ultimately failed, because you don't always want everything looking like plastic.

<comment><USER16> It would be interesting to build a codec with human preferences in mind; you might end up with images that most people think looks better than the original at a fraction of the size - how you make those choices is very difficult though.

<comment><USER17> Some video encoders already incorporate perceptual optimizations (eg, x264's psy-rd and psy-trellis) that "look" better but lead to objectively worse results with traditional image quality metrics.

Audio codecs, however, have been using psychoacoustic models for decades. Frequencies outside the human hearing range are clipped, masked noises are discarded, voice codecs emphasize the range of human speech, etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


This is the most dangerous time for our planet - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/01/stephen-hawking-dangerous-time-planet-inequality <comment><USER2> _So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me, as much as anyone. Whatever we might think about the decision by the ... American public to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders._

So the election of a billionaire now counts as a _rejection of the elites..._

That guy should just stick with theoretical physics.</comment>