Deflation - Are lower prices scarier than higher ones? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2262989/pagenum/all/ <comment><USER2> Deflation poses a couple of significant threats.

Firstly, it acts as a disincentive to real investment: the rate of deflation is effectively an interest rate earned on funds stuffed into mattresses. If deflation is at 5%, no one will want to invest in any project with less than a 5% return over the same period. Risk and liquidity premiums would also increase even for investments that do provide a higher return than the deflation rate.

Secondly, existing long-term debts would become extremely onerous for borrowers. The implications for outstanding mortgages could make the recent default epidemic pale in comparison.

However, it's worth pointing out that the 19th century was largely a period of sustained, gradual deflation, and was also a period of tremendous economic growth with little of the amplified boom-bust cycle we experienced in the 20th century.

I'd conjecture that a climate in which a small amount of deflation is accepted as a given would foster economic decision making that tends to focus more on real wealth-creation, and less on the kind of financial abstractions which have led to the recent turmoil. As long as we could manage the transition from a slightly inflationary to a slightly deflationary economy (i.e. find a way to deal with the problem of outstanding debt), I'm not so sure it would be quite the disaster that the article portrays.

<comment><USER3> What? The latter half of the 19th century had ridiculous booms and busts.

<comment><USER2> Even in comparison to the great depression and the recent financial collapse?

There are always booms and busts, but inflation tends to encourage much bigger booms, and thus much bigger busts. Could you imagine the kind of risk-taking behavior that led to the credit bubble happening in an environment of anticipated deflation?

<comment><USER3> The great depression and recent collapse are 75 years apart.

There were 4 major downturns in the 1800s, 3 in the later half, and they were much more severe than the typical recession in the 20th century, 2 were full- fledged depressions:

[http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2008030421573...](http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080304215730AAbuqyC)

This is in the context of the industrial revolution, so yes, very much boom or bust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"For decades, politicians and pundits on the right have told us that we need to balance the federal budget in order to keep inflation low; this remains a staple of libertarian thinking (even though economic research demonstrates that except in wartime, there is effectively no relationship between the size of government spending and the existence of inflation)."_

Well in that case, lets just stay out of war and let the gov hand out monthly payments to everyone so we don't have to work anymore. If government spending doesn't lead to inflation then this should work out fine.

<comment><USER5> Notice the phrasing. Not government _borrowing_ , not "quantitative easing" (printing money) but spending. In the US and UK there's never been a peacetime high-spending government that didn't also borrow unsustainably.

So if you're say Sweden (high tax, high spending) then perhaps you can avoid high inflation, but you can't extrapolate from there to dissimilar economies.

<comment><USER4> I don't think you read the article, or specifically the quote in my comment you're replying to. It specifically refers to the concern about balancing the budget. You can't run a unbalanced deficit budget without borrowing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Computer hardware (and electronic hardware in general) has been in continuous deflation for decades. "Wait until the price comes down" is common advice in tech circles. And yet the market has grown exponentially regardless.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but qualitatively you usually got more for your money by waiting with tech, the price may have gone down on the original product only because something better replaced it. The price drops are predictably cyclical.

If I buy a commodity like corn, oil, or steel I'm still getting a virtually indistinguishable good regardless when it is bought. The expectation of price drop can create a deflationary feedback if it happens in enough commodities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Krugman wrote a good article earlier this week addressing why deflation is a bad thing.

[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/why-is- deflation...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/why-is-deflation- bad/)

<comment><USER9> Plus the title of this post takes a naive twist to this topic. It's not the current prices that makes deflation bad for an economy, but that the (perceived?) future price will be even lower than the current price, which discourages investment since the investment will just lose.

As for the comment about computer hardware (and this applies to cars), the opportunity cost of using the physical good now vs later is a bit more concrete than throwing money in a "business", esp. startups, which are by nature extremely risky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> FTA: _"For decades, politicians and pundits on the right have told us that we need to balance the federal budget in order to keep inflation low; this remains a staple of libertarian thinking (even though economic research demonstrates that except in wartime, there is effectively no relationship between the size of government spending and the existence of inflation)"_

Sure there is no correlation between size of government and the existence of inflation, but that isn't what the _"politicians and pundits on the right"_ have said, they said _"we need to balance the federal budget in order to keep inflation low"_.

It isn't overall government spending is going indicate inflation, but rather _large deficit spending and/or large gov debt_ that is going to lead to inflation because the only way to pay off creditors is to print more money, the more money in circulation the less value it has => inflation.

Am I wrong? Isn't there some awful inflation going on right now in Zimbabwe because they government keeps printing more and more money to pay off its debt?

<comment><USER4> You're right.

Inflation actually refers to an increasing number of dollars in the economy, not increasing prices of goods. More dollars in the economy will lead to higher prices of goods and services, so this leads to the common misconception. But like you said, if government spending is larger without larger deficits, this would mean they're spending more existing dollars, no new dollars are created, and prices of goods stay the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Folks interested in deflation will want to check out Irving Fisher's debt deflation and Hyman Minsky's work:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Minsky>

</comment><comment><USER12> This is what I love about slate. It seems to do a better job of reporting on issues like this without a lot of partisan ideology.

<comment><USER13> Slate is partisan ideology packaged as Kinsley-ism: "the common wisdom is right, but _not_ for the reason everyone thinks!" He brought that shtick over from The New Republic and it seems to have taken root, even Jack Shafer can't fix it.

If there's any doubt about Slate's partisan leanings, here's how Slate's editors voted in 2008: Barack Obama: 55 John McCain: 1 Bob Barr: 1 Not McCain: 1 Noncitizen, can't vote: 4

<http://www.slate.com/id/2203151/pagenum/4>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Information, trade and money flows at light speed around the world now. This is very different than the 1930's and with a world wide market system, and the US having the reserve currency, I think it would be tough to have spiraling asset deflation like the Great Depression. Whats not tough is abusing this and printing tons of money.

</comment><comment><USER15> Not for me they ain't.</comment>


Report: The Rumors of Google+'s Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated - <AUTHOR> http://siliconfilter.com/report-the-rumors-of-googles-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/

<comment><USER2> Who said it was dying? The other article only said there was some apparent fading interest after some noticeable spikes. It didn't say it was dying.

This article is a non-sequitour to the other one. A: "It looks like the clouds are gathering and it's going to rain". B: "The sky is not falling".

<comment><USER3> There's been a steady stream of naysayers. After a quick search:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2767495> (Why Google+ is poised to fail)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2887848> (A Eulogy for Google+)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2891470> (48% of Google+ users haven't posted yet)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2936809> (Google+ traffic down 27% in the last two weeks)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2999449> (New Data: Google+ Public Posts Decrease by 41% Over Past Two Months)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3213382> (Google+ Is Dead )

To be fair, this is balanced by lots of positive articles, so I think people really just tend to project their own bias.

<comment><USER2> You're right in that there has been a boon in articles about its health. However, this article was specifically addressing the article which cited HitWise data. I thought it was diversionary.</comment></comment></comment>


Merry Christmas, now go patch your Wordpress installation - <AUTHOR> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2012/Dec/242

<comment><AUTHOR> Exploit: <http://git.zx2c4.com/w3-total-fail/tree/w3-total-fail.sh>

Screencast: <http://git.zx2c4.com/w3-total-fail/plain/screencast.ogv>

</comment><comment><USER2> I can confirm the issue. My install was vulnerable. If you don't want to disable W3, then just add

      deny from all

In wp-content/w3tc/dbcache/.htaccess.</comment>


How to make a DIY home alarm system with a raspberry pi and a webcam - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/2d5a2d61da3d

<comment><USER2> Awesome, I've got a similar setup, I use BitTorrent sync though to send the files. The problem with that is I need one local computer to be on in order for it to sync, then I connect that local computer's folder with Dropbox to view screenshots remotely. I've also been looking at removing the IR filter for night time viewing, there are a few blog posts on the c270 specifically, but I haven't dived into that part of the project yet.</comment>


Jordan Peterson: Why You Have to Fight Postmodernism - <AUTHOR> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/05/jordan_peterson_why_you_have_to_fight_postmodernism.html <comment><USER2> why did you link this reactionary garbage</comment>


iOS 11 GM leak/'iPhone 8' Features: Portrait Lighting, True Tone, New AirPods - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2017/09/08/ios-11-gm-d22-iphone-8-details/ <comment><USER2> Worst leak in the History of Apple. It kills all the excitement. We are basically left with whether it is called iPhone "eX" or iPhone Ten on Tuesday.

There is Homepod firmware, and this? So much for doubling down on secrecy.

<comment> xn--cr8h If you don't like leaks, don't look at them.</comment></comment>


For the first time in history, more than half the world is middle-class - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/specialreports/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13063298

<comment><USER2> Previously submitted:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=482717>

It's unfortunate that The Economist, a source of many good articles, has those articles living under so many different URLs that duplicate submissions to HN are very likely, even if the submitters take care to check for duplicates.</comment>


Cracking the Mondrian Code - <AUTHOR> https://logger.believermag.com/post/cracking-the-mondrian-code <comment><USER2> For those who, like me, looked at the original painting and wondered how many people have recreated Mondrians in Lego, the answer is: many people.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure why everyone else is downvoting you, but I was really tempted to when I saw that you didn't include any links to Lego Mondrians!

<comment><USER4> Here are a few good ones:

[http://i.imgur.com/1hrQ6xi.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/1hrQ6xi.jpg)

[https://i.imgur.com/AFhQ7SW.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AFhQ7SW.jpg)

[https://inhabitat.com/rainbow-hued-ole-kirk-lego-lamps- cast-...](https://inhabitat.com/rainbow-hued-ole-kirk-lego-lamps-cast- striking-fascinating-shadows/)

[http://www.legopunk.com/?q=node/42](http://www.legopunk.com/?q=node/42)

<comment><USER5> Am guy in first photo, can confirm Mondrian is one of the easiest works of art to recreate in LEGO. Especially when compared to a Seurat :) [https://andybauch.com/8-bit-art- history/jk81orw38npc4cx4as24...](https://andybauch.com/8-bit-art- history/jk81orw38npc4cx4as24cytvku7qqz)

Here's another guy that put a creative spin on LEGO painting: [http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2015/02/lego-piet- mondrian/](http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2015/02/lego-piet-mondrian/)

<comment><USER4> Gotta love the internet! Post an obscure comment, reply with a cool picture found from a 30 second google, person in the first picture finds the obscure comment on the obscure article and says hi!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article missed a great opportunity to mention Piet, an esoteric programming language that you write by creating Mondrian-style paintings: [http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/piet/samples.html](http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/piet/samples.html)

The Pi calculator is particularly brilliant: _" Naturally, a more accurate value can be obtained by using a bigger program."_</comment>


Facebook's Announcement – it's email. [live] - <AUTHOR> http://apps.facebook.com/facebooklive/

<comment><USER2> All programs evolve until they can send email.... even Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not email. The audience question and the answer about jokes from your Mom clarify:

This is person-to-person conversations.

The concept is that all communication between you and one other individual is an ordered sequence, regardless of the channel. This aggregates all channels into one person-to-person timeline.

The biggest issue I see with it is uncertain latency. Email is low latency, SMS medium, and IM high. With the demo today, it's not clear how you can know when to expect someone to respond.

Their example of leaving an IM w/o having to say "brb", and seeing the notification on the phone, is great for the receiver, but not so great for the sender, who doesn't know why latency just went through the roof.

<comment><USER4> Email is low and IM is high latency? Seems backwards.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I'd written something else and edited, and didn't fix those.

Yes, you're right, of course. I meant email is high latency, SMS medium latency, and IM low latency.

In an earlier edit I'd used the word urgency, as in IM is high urgency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When a company gets a lot of market, they want to differentiate their products so people stop using the standard and gets locked into their "standard slightly modified".

No no no, It is not an MP3 player(anyone could make an MP3 player), is an Ipod.

No no no, It is not email, email is an standard and we don't want to have to compete with other companies on a levered field, it is the facebook messaging event.

As usual they will make it very easy for people to get in, not so easy to get out.

"I'm intensely jealous of the next generation who will have something like Facebook for their whole lives. They will have the conversational history with the people in their lives all the way back to the beginning: From "hey nice to meet you" to "do you want to get coffee sometime" to "our kids have soccer practice at 6 pm tonight." That's a really cool idea."

I feel scared about that, everything you said(later will come audio and video) in a very specific context and frame, like 10 years ago, could be used against you by other people. Bad things could happen when you can't control it(friends of friends could see that)like you could control on gmail.

<comment><USER6> "I feel scared about that, everything you said(later will come audio and video) in a very specific context and frame, like 10 years ago, could be used against you by other people."

It seems you don't have a girlfriend... ;-)

Having dispatched of that softie: IMHO, too much history is a bad thing. Sometimes one _needs_ to forget stuff from the past before one can move on.

A prime example of too much history is the Middle East, more specifically, Israel-Palestine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> To me this sounds a lot like Google Wave.

<comment><USER7> Really? It sounded nothing like Google Wave to me, but I will readily admit that I really didn't know what Google Wave _was_. This just sounds like a system where people choose how they send you a message and you can choose how you receive it, using Facebook as the intermediary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> trying to understand the stream. Facebook emails' biggest feature is similar to gmails priority inbox?

</comment><comment><USER9> It's not email. <http://mashable.com/2010/11/15/facebook-messaging-event/>

<comment><USER10> Saying "It's not email" doesn't make it true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Quoth the Zuck: "This is not e-mail... We don't think that a modern messaging system is going to be e-mail."

Source: <http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/15/technology/facebook_email/>

EDIT: Although reading further, it looks like they will be offering @facebook.com addresses.

<comment><USER12> Yes, it seems like email with capability to interact with SMS and a few other things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The problem is that this is private communication and I don't trust Facebook to do private communication well. I don't trust that my drunk email to an ex girlfriend won't somehow be accessible by someone else, so I won't use it. I'm sure a lot of other people will though.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hmm,

It's not a good sign if the main thing people take away from a presentation is _"This is not X"_.

It doesn't sound like it's as terrible an idea as "Wave" but since messaging is much more core to Facebook, a confused and barely successful product could hurt Facebook more than Wave hurt Google. But perhaps I'm letting my biases creep in.

Aggregating electronic communication protocols is great - it is going to come. But I don't that a single aggregation process is going to do for everyone any more than a single messaging system would work for everyone (disclaimer: I'm working on a protocol aggregating project myself). Like computer to computer protocols, person to protocols vary in their speed, their richness, their reliability and their latency. And appropriately so. Tying them together into a meta-protocols is great but any effort to create a _single_ meta-protocol which "solves" _all_ the speed, richness, reliability and latency problems results in a "monstrosity" which solves none of the problems.

</comment><comment><USER14> So this is going to be aggregating all communication in Facebook?

Sounds great - the problem is that it's Facebook arguing they should be able to do the aggregating but will take active steps to stop anyone else from doing said aggregating (say, suing companies that combine multiple social networking streams).</comment>


An Attempt to Explain iPhone's Missing Copy/Paste - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2008/07/copy_and_paste

<comment><USER2> Eh, it's an attempt, but that is all.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which is why I titled it this way; I'd love to see them come up with a good way to do it, but these excuses are pretty weak. Copy/paste is definitely something that would be nice to have, but it's certainly not debilitating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hmm. So, basically it boils down to adding new novelties, bells and whistles took precedence to implementing basic functionality and utility?

If this is Apple's reason for not adding cut/paste, they need to pull their collective heads out of their collective arses.</comment>


Why 3D doesn't work and never will. - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html <comment><USER4> My own prejudices go along with this completely, but ...

(Arthur C) Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong."

... has turned out to be correct often enough that I wouldn't want to place large bets on this.

(Digression: there's an obvious difficulty in assessing Clarke's First Law. When someone says something is impossible and is wrong, we can tell because, lo, someone else does it. But when someone says something is impossible and is right, we'll never really know for sure; the most we can say is that no one has done it yet. So: time travel? teleportation? faster than light travel? Plenty of eminent (and in some cases elderly) scientists have said, and doubtless will continue to say, that these things are impossible; for all we know they really are; but even if they are we'll never know for sure that Clarke's First Law is wrong for them.)

[EDITED in response to two comments: If the claim is "3D done just like it is now will never work" then I agree that CFL isn't very relevant. If it's "3D movies will never work", which is what I think "3D doesn't work and never will" ought to mean, then I think CFL applies. So maybe I'm really only criticizing Ebert and not Murch, who does embed into his comments the sentence 'Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.'. I do wonder whether the quotes around "holographic" are trying to define it to mean "anything that fixes this problem" rather than strictly "something close to full-wavefront reconstruction using coherent light", in which case I guess he's right _by definition_ and therefore vacuously. I would certainly not want to bet that actual literal holograms are the only way to solve the problem.]

<comment><USER5> Except it doesn't apply in this case. He is saying that true 3D, some sort of holographic display would work fine, but the current fake 3D has a lot of problems. It places constraints on the cinematography, and it doesn't always enhance the end result.

<comment><USER6> Except that it does apply in this case. If your director can keep away from close foreground shots, you don't get this problem. The angles between the eyes and the focusing power of the lens differ minimally once you get several meters away on out to infinity. From several meters to your nose, yes, heaps of variance is required and it would be very hard to do.

This is just Ebert being an idiot and saying "This is my opinion, stated as fact, case closed. I won't enter into any discussion because I might be wrong", just like he said when he declared video games weren't art. It is /profoundly/ unscientific to dismiss something as unfactual simply because you don't like it.

Back in the day, my honours degree was specifically involved in investigating ocular vergence (research jargon as 'angle between the eyes' as opposed to the /action/ of converging), comparing between a collimated image (= light coming to the eye in 'parallel' - from a military helicoptor pilot's HUD) and a real image (= light coming in 'non-parallel') displayed at 3m. At that distance there is already not much difference between focusing or vergence at 3m and at infinity (ie collimated), though discrepancies slightly increase as you move towards the periphery of your vision, though this may have been an artifact of the presentation of the HUD.

I am not an expert in 3D and don't proclaim it to be 'there yet'. I do think that 3D is doable if the director stops the temptation of the 'power' closeup to showoff the 3D. So yeah, I think within constraints, 3D is doable. All film has constraints though, and those constraints are gradually eroded over time - such as night-time filming. Fifty years ago we would have heard Ebert proclaiming that it's impossible to film in natural light at night because film needs a certain amount of light, case closed, yet we've seen some amazing cameras arrive recently that can film at night using natural light.

EDIT: Another example constraint is limiting yourself to a 'viewing box' - <USER2> can't turn your head for a full view of the scene in a movie. You're limited to a particular forced view. Despite this rather incredibly limiting constraint, film has managed to do some pretty amazing stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema._

I'd hate to be introduced like that.

That said, his points make sense. I don't get a headache from watching 3D movies but it does cause extra strain. It's more tiring than watching a normal movie. I have no intention of buying a 3D TV at any point in the future, and though I'll go to a 3D cinema for the different experience, if the movie is the right kind for 3D (e.g. Avatar), I certainly don't see it as a revolutionary new technology.

Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D (which is why, among other things, the world doesn't suddenly look 2-dimensional if you cover one eye). 3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other 19 cues are missing.

Another nail in the coffin of 3DTV: It's been out for years and I don't know a single person who has bought one.

<comment><USER8> _> Another argument I heard against 3D movies is that apparently our brains use all sorts of cues (about 20, I think) other than differences between what the eyes see, in order to make us see things as 3D... 3D movies provide only one of those cues, and so naturally causes a strange feeling because the other 19 cues are missing._

A big one is atmospheric haze, which is easy to reproduce to be fair. It is also the reason for a lot of the perceived inconsistencies in apollo moon photography: [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#background...](http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article could have done without all the pumping up of the authority that Roger was appealing to. Just make your case, big guy.

Having said that, I agree, with one catch. Here's the thing: _we currently don't have 3-D movies_.

We have this fake 2-plane deal put on with funky glasses. That's why the cineamtographers can screw around with your eyes so much like the letter writer explains.

I want 3-D. True 3-D. Not some hacked up fake 3-D. True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles.

Big? Cumbersome? Impractical? Probably. But at least it's a true 3-D experience. When a couple of actors appeared and started talking, it would literally appear as if they were in the same room as you. Directors couldn't have arrows poke out at your eyes or any of that other silly nonsense that they seem to not be able to refrain from doing with the current tech.

The current hacky stuff that passes for 3-D is broken and won't be fixed, this much is true. It remains to be seen whether or not this tech finds a niche in games or specialty cinema, though. It's also an open question as to the future of _real_ 3-D. I'm not so crazy about having the terms all mixed up, because the really cool stuff is coming later.

<comment><USER10> > True 3-D would consist of a large, rotating drum in the middle of my living > room, approximately 6 or 7 feet tall, and several feet wide. Images would > display as three-dimensional objects, viewable from all angles.

That's what idea #65 is all about:

<http://jacquesmattheij.com/Idea+dump+January+2011+edition>

Minus the drum, but when it's spinning it might as well be a drum.

<comment><USER11> I think you could take an existing OLED display and do this right now... you'd just have to write the software. In fact, you could probably do a neat small scale proof of concept by disassembling an Android phone and mounting it on a record player. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are some comments here accusing Murch of Luddism, more or less, and attributing his 3-D skepticism to that.

It's worth pointing out that after spending his entire career editing film by hand, he was one of the first editors to switch to editing film with Avid; and after being a prominent proponent of Avid, he was the first film editor to edit a major motion picture with Apple's Final Cut Pro, somewhat against the wishes of Apple, who didn't think it was ready (despite the name). Meanwhile he developed a database application in Filemaker Pro for keeping track of all of the shots in a movie, starting rather early on, as I recall --- an application now in use by some other film editors who have worked with him.

So whatever the guy's faults (he does seem to enjoy a good story more than fact-checking it) he's not a Luddite. If he thinks something new won't work, it's not because he distrusts new things.

(Disclaimer: he's my father-in-law, so my judgment may be biased.)

<comment><USER13> Also, this is a good place to mention that his book, _In the Blink of an Eye_ is an essential book for anyone who is interested in film editing, and an enjoyable book for anyone who is interested in watching movies. Fascinating stuff. Brilliant guy.

Note: He's not my father-in-law. I've never met him, just a fan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The master quote is this: _a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with_.

Don't bother with technology. What "piracy" proves is that people are more than willing to trade quality for convenience. People will put up with crappy image and garbled sound if it means they can watch what they want faster.

The movie industry loves technology because technology scales (sort of); but what sells tickets are story and talent.

<comment><USER15> Avatar kind of disproves your whole thesis. It had neither story nor acting talent worth speaking of, and bucket loads of technology. Yet it sold more tickets than just about any other movie in history.

I really wish what you said was true and that filmmakers would focus more on great stories, but box office takes show again and again that flashy effects beat great stories 4 times out of 5.

<comment><USER14> Avatar is a counter-example, yes. But I would argue that in this case the main story was technology itself -- in a non-scalable way: the uniqueness of a technology leap.

Incorporating 3D in every single movie just because Avatar was a huge hit would have been like shooting only sinking ships after Titanic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As much as I hate the recent spate of 3D movies, I don't think it has anything to do with the technology, but more about how poorly it is applied. I say this because Avatar, at least for me, was simply mind-blowing; it was easily the most immersive film I've ever watched, but mainly because the 3D was done tastefully, subtly, and with care. You can give me as much hand-waving sudo- science to try to convince me I'm not supposed to have liked it, but it won't change my mind; Avatar in 3D literally brought tears to my eyes.

<comment><USER17> "I don't believe your research."

$> sudo science

"I believe you now."

<comment><USER8> When I finish my tab-completion script for the science command we're gonna have green energy, space elevators and jetpacks by the end of the week dude.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> when the first steam powered trains were introduced in the late 19th century, many passengers became sick as well - because they nor any generation before has ever travelled so fast before. nowadays everybody rides the trains.

if your brain is frequently exposed to 3d films, couldnt it get used to processing that kind of imagery? so as time passes by more and more people go to the movies without a headache?

<comment><USER19> Many people still get motion sick in cars, on boats, and on airplanes. We just don't hear about it as much anymore. That doesn't mean the problem has gone away.

<comment><USER20> And yet, they still didn't switch back to Horses.. strange

<comment><USER21> What's the practicality of switching back to horses? It's prohibitively expensive to do so because using horses as a form of transportation is just not supported by the modern market.

I say this as someone who suffers from motion sickness, yet who rides in planes and buses. There simply aren't any reasonably easy alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Fictional dialogue between Ebert and myself:

Ebert: "Stop watching that 3D movie, it's straining your eyes!" Me: "But... no it isn't and it's awesome" Ebert: "It isn't immersive! Me: "I'm feeling perfectly immersed, thank you" Ebert: "But there are all these valid but theoretical reasons why you shouldn't enjoy it!" Me: "Would you please just shut up and let me watch the movie? The aliens are about to have all the sex. In 3D!" Ebert: "Hrumph!"

You can see how I let myself get the last word there, not counting Ebert's old-grumpy-man-throat-clearing. So clearly I had all the winning arguments.

My point is this: All the theoretical reasoning about planes and strains are moot as far as I know. Because in the end... 3D is awesome. I love it, and I wont let any experts in the world convince me otherwise. Even Feynman wouldn't be able to... well ok, maybe Feynman. But none other!

<comment><USER23> You're completely missing the point if you thought Ebert was trying to tell you what you should enjoy. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. Similarly, my mom thinks my shaky line drawings from when I was 10 years old are absolutely brilliant.

You're allowed to enjoy whatever you want — Ebert isn't arguing with you. He's talking about inherent problems with the technology that come out in the general case.

<comment><USER22> Maybe I am missing the point.

But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why talk about inherent problems in the general case at all, no matter if it is kid's drawings or 3D movies. There is a market for both of them.

He's making a case for the objective value of something where I believe only subjective values matter. To each his own.

<comment><USER23> Can you explain why my personal feelings are relevant to the general mass- market utility of a technology? Unless somebody is making a movie just for me and I just happen to think the tech is really neat (which is outside the scope of Ebert's piece), I don't see how it matters one whit.

There are objective things and subjective things and some shades between. You're talking about purely subjective tastes and Ebert was not. You may want to talk about subjective things, but that isn't what he was doing.

<comment><USER22> It's because the mass-market appeal is precisely made up of a lot of personal opinions. There is nothing inbetween. A market is formed by millions upon millions of little purchasing decisions, each one commanded by subjective thought. The objectiveness Ebert is trying to will into existance can never be more than an illusion. The market is utterly made out of the subjective. Otherwise, marketing wouldn't work. And $2B Avatar box office sales is an excellent example of the market not caring about what an old wizard holds forth as the objective truth.

<comment><USER24> The popularity of Avatar tells us little about the long term commercial viability of 3D films. Avatar was the subject of a huge amount of marketing and hype (deserved or not) so there are reasons to think it would have done well regardless. Especially when you consider how the directors previous mainstream effort fared. Also, the box office figures for 3D features are falling.

[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1C3Pn4W3x)

You're using hand picked data points to argue against the validity of an attempted reasoned argument.

<comment><USER22> Ok, my mistake. Skip the part about Avatar. My reasoning does not rely upon it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My problem with 3D is simply that I find I can't disappear into the movie. I'm steadily aware of _myself sitting and watching_ the 3D effects, which ruins the experience.

<comment><USER26> I had this feeling with some poorly made 3D movies. But I only occasionally had that feeling while watching Avatar.

<comment><USER27> I didn't get this feeling at all with How to Train your Dragon - I thought the 3D was really pretty charming in that movie (just like, you know, everything else about it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> They said the same thing about "Talkies", and I'll quote from wikipedia:

"....the new development was treated with suspicion by many filmmakers and critics, who worried that a focus on dialogue would subvert the unique aesthetic virtues of soundless cinema."

<comment><USER29> To be fair, they of course were right. There are unique aesthetic values in silent film, and adding dialogue does do away with them (otherwise they wouldn't be unique values). They simply discovered that people consider it a worthwhile tradeoff.

<comment><USER30> Absolutely -- and the same applies to color photography. There are still good reasons for shooting in black & white. Color film may be more easily engaging as the images are more familiar, but it is not inherently better aesthetically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Doesn't this assume you don't know the focal plane? If you know what the viewer is focusing on, you can compensate. This means that without any holographic projection techniques, you could fully solve this problem by presenting each viewer with images customized to his detected focus. That might require an expensive headset today, which radically changes the economics of 3D movies, but it doesn't require a breakthrough in science.

In fact, it'd probably be safe to just assume that the user is focused on the primary element in the scene. Unfortunately, in a theater, you probably can't compensate for focus in a way that works for all of the audience, so this doesn't solve much.

<comment><USER32> Not as I understand it. I think you're conflating two issues. What you're talking about deals with the issue of looking at different elements of the scene and bringing each one to clarity as you look at it.

The second, larger issue, is the physiological contraction of muscles each eye individually must do to focus at a given distance. Try this: cover one eye and look at a held up finger with the other eye. Notice the background is blurry. Now make the background clear and you'll notice your finger is blurry.

The eye adjusts its shape to focus on different distances. This is independent of the two eyes working together and seeing different images which the brain later merges into a 3D scene.

The issue with all the current 3D technologies I know about is the image, ultimately, is always on some screen at a fixed distance. You can give each eye separate images, you can track where the eye is looking and modify what image is seen, but in the end, the eye muscles are always contorting the eye to see that plane 80' away clearly.

<comment><USER31> You're right. It's not just a still image that needs to be corrected - it's the whole volume of light that needs to be distorted (the eye is not a pinhole camera). But I still think it's doable - isn't that what corrective lenses do?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can't say I've got a headache from any of the current crop of 3D films – is my brain doing something different?

Also, regarding: _"Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images."_ See: <http://www.holografika.com/>

<comment><USER34> There were complaints about nausea from Cloverfield's filming technique, despite this technique being used many times before without nearly as much camera control (Blare Witch project had some awful shaky scenes far worse than Cloverfield).

I don't buy any of these articles. Yes some people won't respond well to 3D, but the vast majority does and has in every implementation. This is as absurd as saying when the Model T was released, that because of a minority of the population having motion sickness that the automobile is destined to fail.

I don't know a single person who has a problem with 3D. Well technically that's a lie, I know someone who's blind in one eye, so with the glasses they're just watching an over expensive 2D movie and without they're just watching a very fuzzy movie.

<comment><USER35> I think Murch/Ebert are implicitly drawing a distinction between 3D being something people can watch without having a physical response and 3D as a viable technique for making movies. I understood the argument to be twofold. Firstly, even if you don't get headaches, your brain is still working overtime, which makes your movie-watching experience less pleasurable than it would be if you were watching a true holographic movie. Secondly, because of the way the brain processes images and the illusion created by 3D movies, the technique limits the genre because one cannot use edits that are very rapid or have shots with a lot of horizontal movement.

Whether that amounts to "not working" is perhaps up for discussion, but I think they have a point that the problems with 3D extend far beyond the fact that some people have adverse physiological reactions while watching.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> So the claim (which sounds reasonable) is that there is a mismatch between the plane on which each eye is focused and the convergence angle between the eyes and we are unaccustomed to this in real life.

Why doesn't this also cause discomfort in a conventional 2D movie in which the focal plane and the convergence angle stay the same (both at the screen plane) but our brains expect the convergence angle to change as items from different distances in the movie image come into focus in the movie?

</comment><comment><USER37> Why would anyone engage in a theoretical discussion about whether 3D cinema would be good to watch? _It already exists._ You can go buy a ticket and see for yourself. You can do this _literally_ right now.

> The 3D image is dark [...] and small.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and didn't notice that.

> [...] horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and it was good. I was able to determine this despite having no idea what strobing is.

> So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and had no issues with convergence.

> 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" > relationship to the image.

I just saw a 3D movie last week and was very immersed.

Next up, we have a scientist with a theory about what the far side of the moon looks like. Apollo whatnow?

<comment><USER38> I don't mean to be dismissive of your points, because they do have some merit in this discussion, but I feel compelled to point something out.

Lots of people, otherwise very smart and picky people, have absolutely no "taste" for visual content. They will cheerfully accept the most terrible photographs and shakey video if they accept that as par for the course. Artists tend to take a more objective view, and frequently notice things that their audience _may not consciously notice_ , but that do have measurable effects on the overall quality of the production.

This is as true for videography as it is for photography (in which emotional investment can make people overlook ridiculous image flaws for years before finally seeing the ugly half-face in the corner or a totally botched focus). Unless you train yourself to look objectively, you're often not _seeing_ what's in front of you, merely representing it and evaluating that representation (which is always the case, of course, but there are naturally degrees of fidelity).

For example, I saw Alice in Wonderland 3D, and I was viewing it at the excellent Sundance theater in San Francisco. We're allowed to take drinks into the theater, and we all had a Bit Too Much™ before the start. I don't remember the 3d of that movie being bad, but upon re-inspection and some pointers I can see what a hack-job that was, even among its lackluster peers at the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Ebert's a bit of a crotchety Luddite clinging to the old ways. This rant, coupled with his diatribe last year about how "video games can never be art"...

[http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve...](http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)

...should be interpreted with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER30> How about responding to the specific points in the article, rather than trying to portray the writer as a luddite clown?

<comment><USER40> But that is more difficult than making assumptions based on his age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Unfortunately Murch's main argument is just wrong wrong.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that your state of focus (accommodation) is just about identical for objects at 10 feet away, 20 feet away, etc., out to infinity. So if your eyes converge on a screen 80 feet away, and try to focus on an object 40 feet away, that's absolutely fine, because the state of focus for 40 and 80 feet away are virtually the _same_ anyway. Your visual system can't tell the difference. This is an experimentally demonstrated fact.

That is to say, your state of focus varies only for objects less than about ten feet away. Focus on a salt shaker three feet away, and yes, the distant horizon will be out of focus. But focus on a tree about 20 feet away, and the distant horizon will be in perfect focus.

For an object to be in focus, the distance from the lens to the film (or in this case, the retina), dr, the distance from the lens to the object, do, and the lens's optical power must obey the lensmaker's equation, (1/di) + (1/do) = P. In the human eye, do = 0.017 m, and P is adjustable. Plot P vs. do, and you'll see the P quickly asymptotes as you move beyond around 3 m.

There are perceptual issues with 3D, but this isn't one of them, at least in cinemas where the screen is far away.

</comment><comment><USER42> Headaches happen mostly to people with poorer eyesight in one eye, a similar effect to wearing the wrong kind of correction eyeglasses.

P.S. Tron 2 was much better in 2D than 3D. The darker screen was annoying and the 3D was far from immersive.

<comment><USER43> Thanks for the opinion about Tron. I missed seeing it early, and now the only places showing it near me are in 3D. I was wondering if it'd be worth it. Now I'll just wait for the DVD.

<comment><USER44> FWIW, I and everyone else I know thought that the 3D+VFX was basically the only reason to see it

<comment><USER42> _Reasons to watch Tron 2_

sequel to a classic: yes

3D: no

storyline: no

acting: no

VFX: yes

Daft Punk: yes

actual Unix on the big screen: yes

hot chicks attracted to nerds: yes

Disney 'family policy' WRT said hot chicks: no

<comment><USER45> Actually I thought the story was pretty good, though it had a couple of holes in it (of the "cut scene" type, not the "bad plot hole" type). It stunned me in that it actually grappled with the consequences of the digitization process in some detail, rather than just blindly reveling in it. It was some decent sci-fi. Consequently it flew above just about everyone's head, especially if you went in with the preconception that it would have no story. (I liked it -> the series is doomed. QED.)

It may help to realize that this is a parallel universe to ours and the way their computers appear to work is that they _really are_ an interface to the world of Tron, which is subordinate to the conventional universe but by all appearances is every bit as real. Thus, Clu's plan is not a violation of the conservation of mass, because it's all working differently here. It's much more a 1960s/1970s-style scifi rather than an "ultra-realistic 2010 scifi" ( _ahem_ ), but within those bounds I was actually pleasantly surprised. Not that it will ever amount to anything but in the back of my head I've actually been working out the physics of Tron, which could be really cool for a 2020-era MMORPG (would take too much processing power to be feasible today), and there's actually enough consistency (perhaps surprisingly) that it's not all in vain; there's different rules, but there are some rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Hmm,

It is interesting to think that perhaps we're technologically approaching something like a _boundary_, a point past-which the synthetic simulation of sensory experiences cannot be taken-in _merely as entertainment_ but rather has strong physiological effects.

Consider the effects of effects of Ultra-High Resolution Video: _"The footage was later projected on a 4 x 7 metre screen for public demonstration and the public were astonished. As the visual effect of the footage travelling down a road was so realistic, some viewers even experienced nausea as a side effect of seeing ultra realistic motion, but not physically feeling the motion. It's like the opposite of seasickness where you can feel movement, but cannot see it while in an enclosed section."_

<http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-62376.html>

I think that implies that at the very least, the producers of the most advanced sensory-simulations are going to be somewhat constrained in what they can produce, the opposite of what one thinks of in considering the freedom of film...

</comment><comment><USER47> > also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it > does in 2D.

Can we please ditch 24 fps for the movies? It's not 3d that strobes. It's crappy fps. 3D just makes it noticeable because we never learned to ignore it like in normal movies.

I know it gives you that popcorn old school real movie theater feeling, but it just sucks for anyone who had experience with higher FPS (which slowly becomes almost everybody).

When I first watched 3d movie few years ago I was strongly annoyed about how my experience was ruined by poor technical quality. When I watched Avatar the IMAX got upgraded so it was much better and because I was immersed in the movie I didn't mind, but low frame-rate was still noticeable.

Can movie directors finally decide to shoot movies in higher FPS or they are still afraid that higher frame-rate will make their move have VHS feel not cinema theater feel?

<comment><USER30> I'm guessing that film or DV shot at a higher frame rate simply can't be shown at most theaters due to equipment limitations. And if you shoot at a higher FPS and reduce it for those theaters, the FPS don't divide evenly so you get horrible artifacts. So it's not just up to the director.

<comment><USER47> I've seen a high FPS movie in cinema once. It was amazing. And it was small crappy amateurish cinema and short independent movie. That makes me think that there are other more important causes than just technological limitations of commonly used cinema equipment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Slate has also covered this, and the problem has been known for a long time:

"The Problem With 3-D: It hurts your eyes. Always has, always will."

<http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/>

With slight differences, stereoscopic 3D on a flat screen is an over-50-year- old technology. It gets repeatedly tried, then the novelty wears off and the negatives become familiar, and it recedes for a while – returning when it's 'novel' again.

Perhaps children who watch a lot of screen-3D can adapt. However, it's equally possible lingering impairment to vision could result – temporary or permanent. See the speculation by Mark Pesce about why his 1990s Sega VR project got cancelled:

"Keep doing that and you'll go blind"

<http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32814.html>

</comment><comment><USER49> "3D movies" is a very inaccurate tag applied to the current steroscopic productions and equipment. It is, in a sense, a pragmatic extension of both traditional film-making and film watching.

When the technology for producing and watching in real 3d (e.g. volumetric display technology and corresponding recording technology) becomes available, the entire process of producing a movie will be radically different from how it is today. Currently, everything is controlled at production time. Once you get real 3D, the "camera position" is controlled by the viewer. That should be quite a change for directors and editors. Once you get real 3D, you will probably not sit still while watching a production. you will want to move around, explore it. This will have interesting effects when a lot of people are watching a production together and people flock around because they discovered something interesting in the back. Or maybe there will be a controller for moving the camera position, that would take fights for the remote to a whole new level ;)

Also, acting might become quite different from what it is today, because recording a movie might no longer be done with a photographic process but may be based purely on motion capturing. Actors would become puppeteers. (Some are today: think Gollum)

What I'm trying to say. Real 3D will be much more revolutionary for cinematography. What we are seeing today is just a gimmick. Nothing more.

</comment><comment><USER50> Heck, there are even more issues - just ponder set design and many visual effects. You can't fake rain with a little water falling just in front of the camera anymore when you can _tell_ it's just some water right in front of the camera. CGI it? You need those CGI raindrops in three dimensions. Etc.

But it's not that 3D will _never_ work, it's that we're clueless about how it will be made to work.

3D films are a distinct medium, not "films++". Right now, we're at the equivalent of the, "I know, let's point a single, unmoving camera at a stage play!" stage of early cinematography. At that point in time, you could come up with an analysis as good as Murch's for why this "filmed stage play" thing was just stupid and could never be satisfying - and it would be just as completely _correct_.

Just like you can't just point a camera at a stage to make a movie, you can't just throw three-dimensionality at a movie production to make a 3D movie. We need to develop a new craft. We need a good decade or more of people poking at this technology in a real, innovative way. We need lots of directors and cinematographers experimenting with this. Hell, we need a horde of film students making inane, pretentious shorts with rented or borrowed equipment - or even people who've never been near a film school. We need this sort of work _just to get started_ in this new medium.

</comment><comment><USER51> Uh, one of the projects the lab I was in was working on was the True3D display: <http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/> which handled both accommodation and vergence. This research is almost 8 years old at this point and I don't know the exact progress on it but there are people who are working on it and it is possible to overcome.

</comment><comment><USER52> I've greatly enjoyed some 3-D movies. My impression is that the current systems do better when the dynamic range in value isn't very strong. "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs" tried to do all sorts of transmitted light effects that are tempting but don't quite work. Other films, like Avatar, Tangled, Tron, and the 3-d conversions of Toy Story 1+2 and work a lot better.

Last weekend I was playing with some 3-D glasses, black paper and colored pencils, trying to draw stereoscopic images by hand. The first thing I realized is that you've really got to get conventional perspective right... It has to tell a consistent story or your brain is going to really rebel.

</comment><comment><USER53> Don't know, everybody seems to bash 3D these days. When I watched Avatar I thought it was pretty awesome and didn't get any headaches either. Maybe it's no good having a 3D TV at home and expose ourselves constantly to fake 3D every day, but watching a movie every now and then in the cinema can't be that bad.

Edit: Also, all these people are just speculating, there's no science backing up any pro or anti 3D claims. I would be careful giving Nintendo 3DS's to small children, that are still developing vision, but as I said I don't think watching a 3D movie every now and then is a bad thing if you enjoy doing so.

<comment><USER5> Did you even read the article? He's not speculating, he's talking about how human vision works, and how the current 3D technology is more difficult for us humans to process, and he's talking about how the current 3D technology places limitations on the cinematography that 2D movies don't suffer from. Those are big obstacles that make current 3D movies a worse experience. Whether the 3D itself makes up for it is subjective though.

<comment><USER54> No offense to sound engineers, but Murch is not the foremost authority on the brain, the eyes, and whatever else goes into our processing of 3D. Further he hasn't offered any sort of proof, merely conjecture about why he thinks 3D should get off his lawn.

Sure, the current technology has some weaknesses, but as others have said, many found it awfully compelling in Avatar (many good reviews, and $2B in revenue).

<comment><USER21> I kept thinking this while reading the article, and I'm not sure why nobody else has posted this yet. I am not a fan of "3D" as it exists in it's most recent film form, but this is not a particularly well argued and supported indictment of 3D.

I think your comment should be directly in response to the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Interesting that convergence V focus is the problem. That's the same thing that random-dot stereograms have, although it's worth there as you have no cue as to the right convergence depth.

</comment><comment><USER56> I have a degenerative eye condition (keratoconus) which affects one eye more severely than the other, this makes me hesitant to pay extra to watch a film in 3D. I've actually not watched any under the fear that I'd have to walk out of a film that my friends are enjoying.

I might head down to an electronics store and give on the 3D televisions a try, that way I'll know if my condition will negatively affect the experience as much as I expect.

<comment><USER33> I have keratoconus as well and haven't had any problems, but then I'm guessing mine isn't as bad as your: my glasses correct my sight well enough that it's fine to just wear the cinema-supplied glasses over the top.

<comment><USER56> I've been going back and forth trying different types of contact lenses for about a year now. The best I've had so far can only be described as a minor improvement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Well, yeah, the current tech is primitive. However:

Increase the frame rate already. 24fps is not the word of god. It's used because that was all they were able to do 100 years ago, and then it became de-facto standard. Time to move on already.

Yes, we need to capture more information than simply two video channels (left and right). Probably a lot more. Then we could re-create a true illusion of depth.

</comment><comment><USER58> I have a problem with 3d in that my eyes never converge, period. I have keratoconus and have had surgery in my left eye, the end result of which is that my eyes have different vision levels, the left being much better than the right. My right eye drifts off a bit (lazy eye) and I focus with my left (better) eye.

The entire premise of 3d basically excludes me.

</comment><comment><USER59> I preordered a Nintendo 3DS on day one it was available from Amazon.com.

Not for the the 3D, but for:

1\. A New Pilot Wings. No price is too high to pay for a new Pilot Wings. I have been waiting years.

2\. Portable Ocarina of Time. Same reason.

The entertainment and distraction they provide me (I can play Zelda OoT over and over, it does not get tiring or dull to me) is worth every cent.

Edit: English, I can't type it.

<comment><USER21> I nearly decided on a Nintendo 3DS, but after trying one out in person, I completely changed my mind. I would play it in 2D mode the whole time because the 3D I've seen on it gives me headaches. So basically, I'd be paying a premium for hardware that I would specifically be turning off. Eventually the system might stabilize with some good games like the DS did, but there's going to be a crap-ton of shovelware at first which tries to exploit the 3D effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> While I agree that there has yet to be a film which uses 3D properly (that is to say, a story that could be told no other way) I don't see how "tricking the brain" using stereoscopic images is any different than tricking the brain using other photographic techniques (shallow depth-of-field, exaggerated perspective, etc.)?

</comment><comment><USER61> This particular implementation will probably never work, but that doesn't mean "3D movies" in some form will never work.

This guy built a stunning demonstration giving a 3d effect with a wiimote and a standard TV: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw>

</comment><comment><USER62> I'm glad that somebody other than me has come out and complained about the darkness of the image - I ask other people and they act as if it isn't the case, but it was really striking when I went to see Avatar. Major drawback...

</comment><comment><USER63> Let's make one clear: Everything you see today which is called 3D, is NOT 3D! This is just Stereo, or call it also fake-3D!

A real 3D "thing" is currently to expensive and not practical for a mass market.

</comment><comment><USER64> I've seen movies in 3D and they work fine enough for me.

</comment><comment><USER65> 3D at least needs to be shot in 48 FPS or more - the stuttering effect would be pretty much gone then.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'll wait for the market or the peer-reviewed research, thanks (instead of a _sound engineer_ ).

</comment><comment><USER67> Great read. I agree with _less_ immersion in 3D films.

I saw Pixar's "Up" in 3D. Such a touching story.

But at the sad scenes, when my eyes started to water up, I became super conscious of the fact that I had silly oversized glasses on my face, and it ruined the moment.

Watching the Blu-ray, in the comfort of my own home, I'm bawling like a baby.

<comment><USER68> Did you ever become conscious of the fact that you're sitting in a chair staring at a rectangle? Why or why not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I couldn't read this article because of the stupidly large headshot at the top.

</comment><comment><USER70> I was going to quote "Everything that can be invented has been invented", but it turns out it's most likely false:

<http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm>

</comment><comment><USER71> Ah, but if the assumption that people act rationally held, there'd be no religion. I think 3D goes when religion does! Ouch.

</comment><comment><USER72> I watched Toy Story in 3D (with the kids! :) ) and I kept forgetting it was in 3D... I just kinda tuned it out to it, I don't know how to explain it. The 3D aspect was a complete waste after about 5/10 minutes of novelty. Like Murch says, make the atmosphere involving and don't worry about adding frills - <USER3> it's good enough, and we'll immerse ourselves without any tech help.

</comment><comment><USER73> My lying eyes have seen many great 3D movies that did work. I respect Ebert because he has great taste and is right about movies far more often than wrong but on this issue I think he has 'cranky old man syndrome', ignoring the baby for the bathwater.

</comment><comment><USER74> While I think an immersive VR system would be great, I don't understand the appeal of a 3D movie as exists today. Then again, I never understood the appeal of surround sound, since unless I can turn and _see_ something behind me, it makes no sense that sound would come from there. I'm just a four channel (stereo + center + sub) kind of guy.</comment>


The California coast is disappearing under the rising sea - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-sea-level-rise-california-coast/ <comment><USER2> Macro trends in nature are strong, humans can try and mitigate but we're ultimately takers on the trend. There might be cases where sea walls provide compelling protection along specific parts of the coast, but as a grand plan to save the existing coastline, it's a waste.

We studied Pacifia's cliff side/coastline degradation in hydrology class. What's happening is that waves erode the bottom of the cliff and the rest sloughs off, like pulling Jenga blocks from the bottom of the pile. A massive sea wall could slow the rate of cliffside erosion on the time scale of a generation, But the risk/hazard will remain. I don't see the the benefit to society for not retreating development here.

<comment><USER3> No.

We created almost all of this - the increase in global sea level due to melting ice caps and glaciers is entirely on us. Similarly the increase in energy in the global weather systems is driven by the same source, and causes the increases in "extreme" weather, which further drives accelerated erosion of coastal regions, flooding, and droughts.

We can try to slow down the damage caused by the symptoms, and as you say, that's all we can do, but it's super important to acknowledge that humans _do_ override "macro" trends in nature. The problem is how we undo changes we caused. Short of magically coming up with a way to dramatically remove heat from the oceans and atmosphere we are at best stuck where we are. Given we haven't made any meaningful changes in the industries causing the climate change we can't expect anything more than further acceleration of the extremes.

<comment><USER4> Even at a constant sea level we still have wave erosion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A good friend used to rent a house overlooking the ocean in Pacifica. That was 2000, and that house is gone now. Amusingly, she lives in Manhattan now, and might get to see Chapter 2 or 3 of this epic saga we are living through. My kids will hopefully get to the end of the first book, if we get lucky and avoid a serious war somewhere in the middle. We moved from 8' above sea level to 700' above sea level last year. I still expect to help pay for saving the SF Bay Area, which will actually be able to engineer its way out of this thanks to a combination of fortuitous geographical circumstances and an economy large enough to sustain the trillion dollars it will cost to protect the area.

Ocean Beach will be history soon enough, though...

<comment><USER6> I've lived in the bay area for over 25 years and Ocean Beach has always remained exactly the same. Pacifica has had serious cliff erosion problems for as long as I can remember. huge problem in California is building in places that shouldn't be built on - fire plains, cliff tops etc

<comment><USER7> The reason Ocean Beach has always remained exactly the same is that the city relocates thousands of tons of sand to south end of it every year.

<comment><USER6> The city moves the wind sand drifts yes, but the tidal flows in and out of the golden gate are moving incredible amounts of sand pretty well every day, which is why the high surf moves around so much. It's not as though SF engineering is pushing sand south with bulldozers every year after it piles up near the golden gate bridge. There is way to much drama and misinformation flowing around on this topic IMO

<comment><USER8> It's hard to imagine SF being affected by this that much anytime soon. I can imagine the Marina and places like that having issues, but SF itself is so tall and there's so much hard rock everywhere.

But I don't know much about the Sunset or the Richmond so I guess you could speak better to that. I live near Twin Peaks.

<comment><USER9> Decently sized chunks of SF used to be water. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Bay,_San_Francisco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Bay,_San_Francisco)

Edit: elsewhere in the thread there's a nice link to a map from the US coast survey, [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/1858_U.S...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/1858_U.S._Coast_Survey_Chart_or_Map_of_San_Francisco%2C_Califorina_- _Geographicus_-_SanFrancisco-uscs-1859.jpg)

<comment><USER8> Marshland and lagoons sounds a bit different than ocean, though. Would they not be easier to drain and contain? Or are you saying this past makes it more susceptible to bay/ocean encroachment in the future?

I'm no civil engineer so this is totally out of my realm of knowledge.

Also, I guess I'm lucky to live on one of the highest points in the city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For most who do not own a home near a shore or in a flood plain, the answer is obvious, and the game reinforces this (it only allows this as a long term success) - do not attempt to change the advance of rising sea levels at sandy beaches and buy back the threatened homes for a managed retreat, every other option essentially is short term stop gap solution for the threatened home owners.

<comment><USER11> To play devil's advocate a little, why should those homes be bought back?

<comment><USER12> Because it's the job of the country/state to decide what land are safe to be built on.

If building too close to the shore was a bad idea, and it was known at the time, the zoning should have forbid it to start with.

These people are not personally responsible for the raise of the sea level, it makes sense to have the risk taken away from them.

<comment><USER13> > Because it's the job of the country/state to decide what land are safe to be > built on.

Not everyone agrees with you. Personally, I don't think it's up to the government to tell you where you can / can't live on land you purchase. However, inspections should and do occur informing you of risks.

Zoning has to do with a variety of factors, but I doubt for most of U.S. history it had to do with "will this coast erode in 100 years" From my limited understanding it has more to do with what CAN be built, not what SHOULD. Basically, "this can be commercial real estate because we need revenue/jobs" vs "this can be residential because we need people"

<comment><USER14> > Personally, I don't think it's up to the government to tell you where you > can / can't live on land you purchase.

I respect your opinion, but isn't it the very purpose of zoning to define what can and cannot be done on that purchased land ?

And it's already used for protection of habitations, for instance not allowing houses in industrial areas. For high risk areas, this all issue could have been avoided by refusing building permits as well, but blanket deciding a whole area can't be used for living is the easiest course of action IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For those interested in data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO 1233) Published by: WMO ; 2019

"Over the period January 1993 to December 2018, the average rate of rise was 3.15 ± 0.3 mm yr-1, while the estimated acceleration was 0.1 mm yr-2. "

[https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789](https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789)

There are of course debates relating to the well-known discrepancy between land-based and satellite observations of sea level rise.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why are you all responding as if the information in this article is true? It's obviously false to anyone who has been to the same beach for the last 30 years. Have you all lost your minds? Have your eyes stopped working? GO LOOK FOR YOURSELVES.

Go watch the compelling video from Tony Heller regarding this article.

I thought my friends on Hacker News were smarter than this

</comment><comment><USER17> If the Netherlands managed to reclaim land through dikes. Why couldn't California do the same in their coastal affluent neighborhoods? California doesn't get bad storms and it rarely gets a hurricanes / tornadoes / tsunamis...etc.

For the bay area...Why not just drain the bay. There was a proposal previously and cost wise it'd easily pay off given the land gains. Heck could easily solve our housing and transit issues

<comment><USER18> There are large wildlife preservation efforts in the Bay Area marshlands (particularly near shoreline park) that would be destroyed.

<comment><USER17> Then just damn up the entrance to the bay and control it's water level. Same risk as draining the bay all together.

Either way global warming is going to change the landscape. Might as well attempt something that limits damage

<comment><USER19> That's close to literally impossible.

There was an absurd plan to place a dam between Richmond and San Rafael[1]. When it was finally studied, there were two fatal problems with the plan. (1) There is not enough water in Summer, to keep the bay behind the dam full. (2) There is too much water from snowmelt in early spring and the San Joaquin valley would turn into a lake.

Now to the environmental side: the bay is amazingly productive. It also acts as a nursery for the ocean. The damage done to the Pacific Ocean ecosystem would be all out of proportion to the gains of a little bit of land.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reber_Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reber_Plan)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not mentioned at all are the big winners, at least for a time, of managed retreat: Owners of the properties just inland, who suddenly acquire whitewater views. These can now charge rent to vacationers at some multiple of what was formerly possible.

Admittedly it's a bit of a puzzle how in practice either their former seaward neighbors, or the public, could lay claim to a share of that increase in value.

</comment><comment><USER21> Let me preface this by stipulating that I believe the evidence that humans have contributed to a warming climate in the last few centuries with all of our carbon emissions, primarily from energy production. I'll further add that it's entirely possible and even quite likely that we are in and have either caused or massively contributed to a mass extinction event.

That being said, I really wonder at the thinking of what I would call "climate alarmists". I mean the Pacifica cliffs are a story about erosion. Ok, sure.

But some like to push this narrative that unless we drastically do something the Earth will turn into Venus, basically.

Thing is, these "boy who cried wolf" type narratives don't really help change perceptions or habits around climate change. What's more, they don't really pass the smell test.

The Earth has been around for billions of years. It's also been much hotter than it is now (eg [1]). The smell test is basically this: a lot can happen in 5B years and if the Earth has been much hotter than it is now and it hasn't turned into Venus yet, why is now different?

There's actually a pretty natural limit to how much carbon we can add to the atmosphere. Eventually we'll just run out of fossil fuels, at which point, we'll just start making them out of thin air and that, by definition, will be carbon neutral.

Honestly I just don't believe we'll fundamentally change human nature here. While that might be fatalistic, even pessimistic, personally I'm optimistic. And I'm optimistic because with not much more automation than we already have the Earth can grow enough food for 10 times as many people as we have now and possibly much more than that and that everything changes once we get sufficiently cheap energy (and obviously I'm optimistic about that happening in the not too distant future). Some here will write that off as naive futurism. Whatever.

With regards to sea level rise, let me add some more context. Over the span of ~5000 years 9000 to 14000 thousand years ago the sea levels rose SIXTY METERS [2]. And we're still here. That's also a blip on the timeline of Earth's geological history.

Whose to say the sea levels won't recede with the next Ice Age? Or are we now arguing the Earth is done with those too?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise)

<comment><USER6> '...the evidence that humans have contributed to a warming climate in the last few centuries with all of our carbon emissions, primarily from energy production' What is this evidence exactly? I"m on the fence about human contributions to changes in earth weather and suspicious about carbon taxation. Sensible stewardship of the planet is a no brainer, but the hysteria is slowly increasing with children particularly freaking out about the planets demise after daily doses of alarmist rhetoric. This can't be healthy and pushes people to go along with questionable political measures. We are at a point where 'climate change' by human activity has to be pushed by Greta Thunberg and others as a slightly fanatical emotional event. I'm not seeing nearly enough hard evidence despite the legions of angry people I come up against who assure me 'it's all been proven' and claiming I am anti science...

<comment><USER21> The history of CO2 levels in the atmosphere [1] is a good starting point unless you're arguing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not and will not cause warming, which would be a bold position to take.

And why do you even care what some Swedish teenager I'd never heard of until right now is protesting climate change? Why does that matter?

[1] [https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the- re...](https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless- rise-of-carbon-dioxide/)

<comment><USER6> It's a heretical position to take against popular opinion and beliefs that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not and will not cause warming, but the evidence is by no means absolute. [http://www.petitionproject.org](http://www.petitionproject.org) I care about the Swedish teenager because she's been nominated for the Nobel prize and has dominated popular opinions this year. Daniil Gorbatenko wrote a good piece on her, I found a link to that here [https://fee.org/articles/the-real-problem- with-greta-thunber...](https://fee.org/articles/the-real-problem-with-greta- thunberg-is-not-her-age/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are homes right on the edge in Pacifica. You walk out of your backyard and to the cliff. I can't wait for us to bail out these people.

</comment><comment><USER23> The ocean is literally inundating your town, and you're worried about home values and 30-year-mortgages? These people all need some kind of loss and grief counseling. Can't wait for the federal bailout money to start pouring into these areas over the next few decades as localities deny and delay until they have no choice but to up and relocate in a hurry.

<comment><USER3> Federal money has been plowing into many of these regions for years. Guaranteed loans and insurance are entirely tax payer funded subsidies/payouts to people who aren't willing to move to areas that don't get flooded/washed out every few years.

I recall John Oliver having a segment on it at some point - basically a bunch of areas in Florida and the South get wiped out repeatedly but the federal support means they're not moving, and some of the same houses have been wiped out multiple times, and are still getting federal support to be rebuilt in the same place.

<comment><USER24> Also that federal support comes without any funding to make the house more weather-ready for the next storm.</comment></comment></comment>


Who's Making Money From Microcredit? [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/338/video.html

<comment><USER2> mohammed unis? not that there isn't real value in micro-finance but I'm still baffled how a financier/banker gets the noble peace prize.</comment>


FCC's Inspector General investigating whether Ajit Pai acted inappropriately - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb53jn/fcc-inspector-general-investigation-ajit-pai-corruption <comment><USER2> I still cannot believe why something as serious as Media consolidation & net neutrality laws are pretty much in this guy's hands.

<comment><USER3> Well it's whoever is in charge of the FCC.

I'm still shocked that he even became a commissioner.

<comment><USER4> In normal times, I could understand that shock. But looking at everyone else that's a part of this administration...

<comment><USER5> EDIT: Read the comments below, I was off a bit.

EDIT2: I can't proofread - edited to clarify that DJT isn't the 55th POTUS.

To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue, and not one entirely of this administration. He was appointed by the 44th President and got a promotion by the 45th.

<comment><USER6> > To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue

Yes, he is.

> and not one entirely of this administration.

Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party.

> He was appointed by the 44th President

That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, _chosen_ by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was _chosen_ by Mitch McConnell.

> and got a promotion by the 55th.

You're off by ten.

<comment><USER5> > You're off by ten.

Agh, I need to proofread more.

> That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are > required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, > chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being > formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell.

It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers?

> Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party.

Again, couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member?

> Yes, he is.

The way he got there in the first place was through a person of the other party, no? Is there a law in place stating that he _has_ to promote a Republican, rather than a person of another non-Democrat party?

___

I do have to say though, I see your point in theory, minus the tradition bit.

<comment><USER6> > It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that > will harm American consumers?

It's a tradition backed by the Constitutional rule that appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, and structure and rules of the Senate which, in practice on matters of appointment (for those offices for which filibusters have not been abolished in Senate rules), allow either major party, if unified, to obstruct appointments (and, additionally, legislation.)

So, sure, Obama could have not appointed whoever McConnell chose—and had even worse legislative prospects and basically guaranteed a vacancy that his successor would have gotten to fill, while weakening a tradition that (given the way power is divided in the US Constitution) is key to various parts of the government functioning _at all_.

> couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an > Independent/Green Party member?

No. He could have _nominated_ such a person, but they would have zero chance of being confirmed. If he chose not to nominate Pai, he would, to have any choice of confirmation, find someone who enough _Republican Senators_ liked better than Pai enough to overlook the violation of tradition and snub of their leadership. Which might be possible, but probably wouldn't be any _better_.

The President is not a dictator, and there are significant checks on his power in the American system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I live in a red state and e-mailed all of my representatives about net neutrality and I got a response back from all but one of them. From their responses, and my own research I've concluded there is another side to this story than just Republicans treating this like a partisan issue or votes being bought out from Comcast so large cable companies can make more money.

All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws are made to have true net neutrality.[0] From the responses from my representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum.

[0]Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me: "Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and economy."

</comment><comment><USER8> Regardless of the merits of the case, does "local control" matter? Any web site is available in pretty much every inhabited corner of the US (and this means Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, but also Medium, NYTimes.com, Foxnews.com, random blogs, and, let's not forget, stormfront, 4chan, foxnews.com, and mother jones.com. The big broadcast networks (Comcast-NBC, CBS, Disney/ABC, and in radio, Clearchannel) dominate the airwaves in every market, just as they are entering eclipse. Do "local" stations even matter?

FWIW I _really, really_ dislike Sinclair Publishing, haven't liked almost anything Pai has said to date, and am somewhat willing to believe, a priori, that he is corrupt. And still I am not sure if there is really a problem.

<comment><USER9> I would argue that local channels matter even more now than they used to.

Most of my day-to-day news sources are national or international. Most of the media and pop culture I consume too. I'm lucky enough to still have a local newspaper that does some actual reporting, but it's probably not long for this world. Even social media and the water cooler at work are more interested in the widely distributed professional communities I'm a member of then the actual physical community I live in.

My city's nightly news broadcast is close to the only reliable source of information about my municipal and state government in my media diet. In all but the most sensational of cases, it's likely to be the one place I hear about huge classes of events which will have far more of an impact on my life than whatever is on CNN today. For all but the federal level, it's as likely as not to be my sole passive source of information about political candidates.

I like to think I'm an unusually well-informed citizen (by which I mean I'm a politics junkie) and without a half hour of TV news every night I would have absolutely no clue what most of my government is doing in my name with my tax dollars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> And who's to say he can't be persuaded by some green bills either?

<comment><USER11> I post on [http://reddit.com/r/noNetNeutrality](http://reddit.com/r/noNetNeutrality) occasionally. Can you show me exactly how he was paid and by who? I hear this all the time but no evidence has been cited.

<comment><USER12> I think it'd be silly to assert he's being directly bribed with big suitcases full of cash.

The concepts of regulatory capture and revolving doors are hardly new or significantly disputed, though. He's worked for Verizon in the past, and I'd fully expect him to land a nice industry job after his tenure. Doing nice things for industry helps a lot in future employment prospects.

He has joked in the past about being a "Verizon puppet" ([https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai- jokes-a...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-about- being-a-brainwashed-verizon-puppet-at-the-fcc/)) and given his actions I think there's a bit of truth to the joke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Typically over-the-top Vice headline. This is what Inspectors General are supposed to do.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_\(United_States\))

edit: let me pose this differently, _who else_ would be investigating Pai in his role as head of the FCC for potential misconduct in that role? That is the job of the IG.

<comment><USER14> > __ _This is what Inspectors General are supposed to do._ __

Sure, but this is the first time in my lifetime (43yo) that I have heard of an FCC head being investigated... AND I have spent my entire career online...

So this is actually big news (to me) - in that I already was aware that I thought Pai was a corporate douche-plant... and ___NOW_ __he is being investigated??? huh. so... yeah - I was speculating previously that he was a "bad dude" \- but now he is a ___Bad Dude_ __

<comment><USER15> The NYT article pointed out that Tom Wheeler, the previous FCC head, was also investigated by the FCC IG.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc- sinclair-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-sinclair- ajit-pai.html)

<comment><USER16> yes, but this is the first time that the media has made a big deal out of it, so it must be more important.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Stephen Hawking warns development of AI could mean end of human race - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-03/stephen-hawking-warns-artificial-intelligence-could-end-humanity/5935772

<comment><USER2> Extensive discussion from two weeks ago - anyone interested in the collective wisdom of the HN community might be interested:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8686841](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8686841)

These other submissions got very little discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8698629](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8698629)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8690071](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8690071)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8688631](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8688631)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8686989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8686989)</comment>


Rendering Synthetic Objects into Legacy Photographs - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/28962540 <comment><USER2> It seems to me like this allows some incredible augmented reality once a computer vision system can perform do the user-provided analysis of the scene's geometry and light sources.</comment>


Fixing indoor air is a way to curb the spread of Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90515931/theres-a-key-way-to-curb-the-spread-of-covid-19-but-no-one-is-talking-about-it <comment><USER2> Not the first time I've heard about this and it makes sense. Sadly people mentioning things like this get censored / deplatformed because their opinions go against the government policy. Like this person in my country:

[https://www.maurice.nl/tag/humidity/](https://www.maurice.nl/tag/humidity/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Some countries are boasting that their superior policies prevent the spread so the other countries should learn from them. I doubt it. While the difference of Sweden and nearby countries can be explained by the policy difference, It's hard to believe most Asian countries doesn't suffer that severely can be explained by policy alone.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here is an air quality presentation by none other than Hey spokesman DHH:

[https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1101552528632643584?s=20](https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1101552528632643584?s=20)

<comment><USER5> I've been using Awair[0] for almost a year and I did found a few problems with my habits around managing air.

0: [https://www.getawair.com/home/element](https://www.getawair.com/home/element)

<comment><USER6> What problems did you find and how did you solve it? Do you feel the difference other than the numbers displayed?

<comment><USER5> 1\. The fact that the humidity is often too low where I am at. I got a humidifier. Before using this thing I had dry nostrils, but never paid attention to it. Now it's better.

2\. The way cooking affects pm2.5. I don't have great ventilation in the kitchen, so I started ventilating via windows for a better air quality at home. I do not feel effects of this though.

3\. How fast the CO2 levels are rising with closed windows. Since my childhood it was regular in my family to sleep with windows closed, and ventilate maybe couple of times per day. And in the summer time the windows were closed when the air was cooled with a conditioner.

It turns out, that in an hour with closed windows the CO2 level is already higher than what is considered healthy. Nowadays it seems like I can say when room needs ventilation without a sensor, just cause I feel the air is not "nutritious" enough. I do feel worse (tired, slight headache) when not ventilating.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ethereum Ran into Two Problems Dash Long Since Fixed - <AUTHOR> https://www.dashforcenews.com/ethereum-ran-two-problems-dash-long-since-fixed/ <comment><USER2> What a load of crap article, Instantsend bullshit can per se not work, it takes time in a consensus network to reach consensus, except u are losing some kind of offchain network like Lightning/Raiden.

The inbuilt coinmixer is also a hilarious joke, jeez.....</comment>


Radiohead Public Library – new onlive archive - <AUTHOR> https://radiohead.com/ <comment><USER2> I so enjoy the color based navigation.</comment>