Apart from Magic Leap, the general focus of the industry has moved away from HMD AR to handheld AR. You use the phone as a viewfinder to do things.
I will say that if HMD based AR becomes as unobtrusive as sunglasses, I'd see a large market for folks. The market for glasses approximately 10x the market for contact lenses and corrective surgery. Though the 'always wear your bluetooth earpiece' fad has largely subsided, I still occasionally see someone doing that and appreciating the value. Of course we have no *clue* how to make such a reality at this point.
Founder of company bashes competitor. News at 11...
However, those folk have not been so harsh with Google, Microsoft, or Valve. There is clearly a feeling to treat *this* competitor different. The tone of the industry thus far has been to encourage everyone's success, as trying to snipe each other is seen as too risky in a market that is far from certain to take hold. Magic Leap is considered different in ways that invite people taking more openly bearish stances within the industry. Letting Magic Leap be held up as an example of the VR+AR industry is seen as riskier than trying to encourage more success in the market.
AR is a huge market. VR not so much,
This is tough. With respect to Magic Leap's neck of the woods (HMD based AR), this seems incorrect, the market seems to have been a dud thus far. You have inconvenient headset like VR, but you additionally have highly limited field of view, and also challenges with opacity of virtual elements. With respect to the handheld AR type experience (e.g. Pokemon Go), that could be argued to be a much larger addressable market, though that seems to have been a fad. Google has done work to make it a more mainstream capability of the Android ecosystem, but there's not much there (and it doesn't work well, even a simple measuring app rarely works well enough to be practical).
AR != VR so I'm not really sure what he's on about.
There is a rather large claim that AR is a strict superset of VR. A perfect AR implementation could do VR simply by overlaying *everything*. While theoretically true, some people get too hung up on that pipe dream and talk about how short term VR is since AR is going to be ready 'real soon now'. Practically speaking, we have no *clue* of delivering such an experience that does the real-world and virtual overlay justice, but that doesn't stop the rhetoric from cropping up here and there.
You'll note that aside from Facebook, none of the other big tech companies are worried much about VR but they are spending a LOT of money on AR
Valve, Microsoft, and Google all do more in VR than AR. Sure, Google talked up Google glass a lot before switching gears to Daydream, a purely VR play, and project Tango for their AR (handheld AR instead of HMD AR). Yes Microsoft *led* with Hololens but ultimately the mainstay of their mixed reality efforts have shifted to VR. I would say in general, both AR and VR investment has unfortunately calmed down, though at least some continue to do VR for gaming, as that does seem to have some traction at least for high end experience.
Eh, Oculus had plenty of VC money and plenty of money in general. I doubt he has much room to *personally* be jealous of investment in them.
However, VR has been a very uncertain endeavor, and whatever chances it has had/will have of succeeding can be seriously harmed by a company getting a lot of attention, setting themselves up as a *huge* part of the perception of the industry, and then botching it to turn people off of dealing with that industry.
For example, little of this sort of thing was said by Oculus folk about SteamVR, Windows Mixed Reality, or Google Daydream because all of those seemed to be doing the right sort of thing and setting the right sort of expectations. Substantive improvements without going crazy overboard with the hype. The general philosophy has been to support the tide to rise all ships rather than to be overly critical of each other..
If the industry rolled with Magic Leap's claims however, then any blow back Magic Leap receives would carry over to the industry at large. There is very good reason to distance Magic Leap's efforts from the industry at large.
For the first pass yield, I'm actually a bit unsure. When I buy a new car, there's a decent chance that some minor thing isn't right, and the dealer does a quick fix. It may be that first-pass quality standard could be different, as the traditional car makers are accustomed to purchasers not noticing or at worst the dealer can take care of little issues pre sales. Tesla *claims* the problems are minor and sound like the sort of stuff I've seen in cars on the lot from other vendors. In other words, that metric *might* have some more nuance behind it. It might be a higher standard or it might highlight one of the challenges of not having a dealer network.
Other than that, I see demand crashing after the pent up demand is done and I'm not particularly bullish on them. I want to like the futurist sensibilities, but there's a consistent history of making claims that don't pan out in practice.
Of course, maybe I'd be a bit more positive if they actually competently replied to the first-pass yield concern with a fleshed out reply. My guess not being outright said by Tesla suggests I'm wrong, but I still wonder if it is the case.
Of course, there are more than two choices, invest to win if it goges up, invest to win if it goes down, or seeing that the company is too volatile to know if it is going to go up *or* down reliably to bother.
While the organizers of the event themselves stoked the misunderstanding, everything about it smelled like a kids hacking competition with an election theme rather than a real thing. Even if you assumed that the headliner child was some sort of once in a lifetime super genius, it certainly wouldn't have been the case for the majority of the participants to succeed, which did occur.
If the real thing were so trivial so that an 11 year old could casually do it, then one of the *huge* number of veteran security researchers would have found those problems for real in the real sites.
Well, software collections can be a pain... A lot of things just aren't that effortless if you have to go that way.
However, even as upstream declares the end, redhat does continue to support the older language, backporting fixes and supporting it beyond what upstream commits to.
This is actually one of the big conundrums for RedHat. In order to have the resources to provide very long term support, they have to be relatively choosy about how much and how frequently they support upstream changes. As a result users get impatient and go to a more aggressive distro, but one that won't support them 3 years out. The more they try to offer an appealing experience to those attracted by Ubuntu's cycle, the harder time they have supporting their less aggressive customers.
That still empowers people to randomly evict other people or inflict them with an unfair tax bill.
The current system where a property owner is free to claim ludicrous values and then have that claim rejected seems to work ok eventually. We shouldn't let shock of a potentially incorrect headline (some say it's really 200 *million* dollars, not 200 dollars) make us rethink this whole thing so quickly.
Yeah, while part of me would love to see a corporation called on shenanigans about declaring crazy undervaluation for tax dodging, on the other hand this opens up the ability for my government to vindictively seize my house if I appeal my house value.
Even if I know I can't get what their assessor says its worth, I still wouldn't want to move just because I declare a different viable price.
Yes, but Cuba doesn't really do that. That's the challenge with communism in practice, those in power to distribute it, distribute it unfairly to themselves.
Don't forget they protect that debt so that not even bankruptcy can discharge it.
They saw a problem (cost to do college was getting a bit too high and becoming too needed) and inadvertently poured gasoline on the problem by triggering a huge escalation of cost through trying to provide relief while compromising with the private sector (you can spend government money and the debts *will* be repaid, but the government will not step in to negotiate terms because *that* would just not be capitalist enough).
The state of college funding represents the worst blend of capitalism and government intervention. More government control over pricing or less government meddling in the loans would likely work better.
It may be going too far to claim them to be 'replicas' and more like 'mockups of something that vaguely resembles the actual site'.
At least, that is the claim of the government. Meaning one of: the government helped and admits their mockups aren't reflective of the genuine implementation, the government had nothing to do with it and thus the organizers were just making a mockup, or the government is lying.
Given the age range, and the overwhelming success, but no 'the sky is falling' prior to the exercise despite many concerned researchers looking at it, I'm leaning toward this was a themed exercise to have a competition for the kids than an actual model of what's happening in reality.
If it were a Mercedes salesperson leaving it unlocked in the airport, they would call it a Mercedes issue.
Also, if Mercedes had a keyfob that would tend to unlock in the pocket, people would be questioning some human factors situations with that keyfob, even though that keyfob is working fine and would be secure if 'used properly'.
The challenge with cloud hosting is that humans suck at securing things, and in the cloud instance context they tend to make the same mistakes they make on private networks except on internet accessible contexts. Sure, they shouldn't make the mistake on private networks and that's not defensible and can be a gigantic risk, but in practice the risk is mitigated by the nature of that private network. One would *hope* being on the internet would scare people into good practice, but that does not seem to be a safe outcome to presume.
Even if a deal is 'in the works', his overeager pronouncement was ill advised and likely constitutes a securities violation. To take note of this does not require people to be in denial about a buyout.
There's a reason why every other business leader that is in this position is absolutely silent or uselessly vague about these things until they are formally announced. Sure, rumors get out, but it is unheard of for someone directly involved to come out and say it without any shred of anonymity.
I've never before seen a situation where people holding a short position have been so vilified, despite being an ever-present phenomenon across all companies. I think holding a short position as a rule is a dumb thing to do (no bounds on how badly that investment can go, not going to do better than other positive investments), but Musk and everyone that stands for him takes it a bit too personally.
They like money, they don't like it being from a single market. They don't care about oil per se. They know they only have a finite supply of oil and the world
They know better than thinking buying out *just* Tesla and shutting it down would stop EV and renewable energy.
I don't see how this could possibly be true. Regardless of venue, an announcement of this nature is going to be (rightfully) subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. Doing it in an utterly public forum is *worse*, not better, if he did not, in fact, have a committed deal signed. It caused the stock to go up and he certainly benefited because the market took him at his word.
The Saudis have a lot of money and the general thought is they are eager to not only hedge, but to diversify.
Diversifying into a company that has the ambition to enable more renewable energy seems a reasonable complementary strategy. Whether Tesla shall be the company to best realize that remains to be seen. They seem to be more willing to do risky short term things than most of their competitors. Of course particularly on EV they have increasingly competent competition from the traditional automakers that have a lot of advantages like more widespread dealer and service networks, but some of those have been viable partnerships. For solar roof, they seem to be having some struggles, and it's still far cheaper just to do normal solar panels. I've no idea on their powerwall stuff.
I say the larger content seems to be clearly oriented around scientific computing.
There is a fair amount of ill-advised 'marketing' sort of propaganda that is misleading in their pages however, which is unfortunate as I think the core goal and how they go about it seems respectable enough.
I'm skeptical that Nintendo wouldn't have any copyrighted content of the licensed games. Someone may more authoritatively come in and say 'no, Nintendo provided no code to be included with games', but it seems probable they had some sort of library code that game developers would have included.
But if your recording violates a copyright, I don't see how one could assert copyright protection over your recording that was already in violation.
For example, going beyond a recording, the Verve sampled a symphonic rendition of a Rolling Stones song, and even had secured rights. Despite multiple layers of indirection, the guy had his credit removed and all revenue to Allen Klein...
So good luck with asserting any rights over a direct recording.
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from Magic Leap, the general focus of the industry has moved away from HMD AR to handheld AR. You use the phone as a viewfinder to do things.
I will say that if HMD based AR becomes as unobtrusive as sunglasses, I'd see a large market for folks. The market for glasses approximately 10x the market for contact lenses and corrective surgery. Though the 'always wear your bluetooth earpiece' fad has largely subsided, I still occasionally see someone doing that and appreciating the value. Of course we have no *clue* how to make such a reality at this point.
Founder of company bashes competitor. News at 11...
However, those folk have not been so harsh with Google, Microsoft, or Valve. There is clearly a feeling to treat *this* competitor different. The tone of the industry thus far has been to encourage everyone's success, as trying to snipe each other is seen as too risky in a market that is far from certain to take hold. Magic Leap is considered different in ways that invite people taking more openly bearish stances within the industry. Letting Magic Leap be held up as an example of the VR+AR industry is seen as riskier than trying to encourage more success in the market.
AR is a huge market. VR not so much,
This is tough. With respect to Magic Leap's neck of the woods (HMD based AR), this seems incorrect, the market seems to have been a dud thus far. You have inconvenient headset like VR, but you additionally have highly limited field of view, and also challenges with opacity of virtual elements. With respect to the handheld AR type experience (e.g. Pokemon Go), that could be argued to be a much larger addressable market, though that seems to have been a fad. Google has done work to make it a more mainstream capability of the Android ecosystem, but there's not much there (and it doesn't work well, even a simple measuring app rarely works well enough to be practical).
AR != VR so I'm not really sure what he's on about.
There is a rather large claim that AR is a strict superset of VR. A perfect AR implementation could do VR simply by overlaying *everything*. While theoretically true, some people get too hung up on that pipe dream and talk about how short term VR is since AR is going to be ready 'real soon now'. Practically speaking, we have no *clue* of delivering such an experience that does the real-world and virtual overlay justice, but that doesn't stop the rhetoric from cropping up here and there.
You'll note that aside from Facebook, none of the other big tech companies are worried much about VR but they are spending a LOT of money on AR
Valve, Microsoft, and Google all do more in VR than AR. Sure, Google talked up Google glass a lot before switching gears to Daydream, a purely VR play, and project Tango for their AR (handheld AR instead of HMD AR). Yes Microsoft *led* with Hololens but ultimately the mainstay of their mixed reality efforts have shifted to VR. I would say in general, both AR and VR investment has unfortunately calmed down, though at least some continue to do VR for gaming, as that does seem to have some traction at least for high end experience.
Eh, Oculus had plenty of VC money and plenty of money in general. I doubt he has much room to *personally* be jealous of investment in them.
However, VR has been a very uncertain endeavor, and whatever chances it has had/will have of succeeding can be seriously harmed by a company getting a lot of attention, setting themselves up as a *huge* part of the perception of the industry, and then botching it to turn people off of dealing with that industry.
For example, little of this sort of thing was said by Oculus folk about SteamVR, Windows Mixed Reality, or Google Daydream because all of those seemed to be doing the right sort of thing and setting the right sort of expectations. Substantive improvements without going crazy overboard with the hype. The general philosophy has been to support the tide to rise all ships rather than to be overly critical of each other..
If the industry rolled with Magic Leap's claims however, then any blow back Magic Leap receives would carry over to the industry at large. There is very good reason to distance Magic Leap's efforts from the industry at large.
For the first pass yield, I'm actually a bit unsure. When I buy a new car, there's a decent chance that some minor thing isn't right, and the dealer does a quick fix. It may be that first-pass quality standard could be different, as the traditional car makers are accustomed to purchasers not noticing or at worst the dealer can take care of little issues pre sales. Tesla *claims* the problems are minor and sound like the sort of stuff I've seen in cars on the lot from other vendors. In other words, that metric *might* have some more nuance behind it. It might be a higher standard or it might highlight one of the challenges of not having a dealer network.
Other than that, I see demand crashing after the pent up demand is done and I'm not particularly bullish on them. I want to like the futurist sensibilities, but there's a consistent history of making claims that don't pan out in practice.
Of course, maybe I'd be a bit more positive if they actually competently replied to the first-pass yield concern with a fleshed out reply. My guess not being outright said by Tesla suggests I'm wrong, but I still wonder if it is the case.
Of course, there are more than two choices, invest to win if it goges up, invest to win if it goes down, or seeing that the company is too volatile to know if it is going to go up *or* down reliably to bother.
While the organizers of the event themselves stoked the misunderstanding, everything about it smelled like a kids hacking competition with an election theme rather than a real thing. Even if you assumed that the headliner child was some sort of once in a lifetime super genius, it certainly wouldn't have been the case for the majority of the participants to succeed, which did occur.
If the real thing were so trivial so that an 11 year old could casually do it, then one of the *huge* number of veteran security researchers would have found those problems for real in the real sites.
Well, software collections can be a pain... A lot of things just aren't that effortless if you have to go that way.
However, even as upstream declares the end, redhat does continue to support the older language, backporting fixes and supporting it beyond what upstream commits to.
This is actually one of the big conundrums for RedHat. In order to have the resources to provide very long term support, they have to be relatively choosy about how much and how frequently they support upstream changes. As a result users get impatient and go to a more aggressive distro, but one that won't support them 3 years out. The more they try to offer an appealing experience to those attracted by Ubuntu's cycle, the harder time they have supporting their less aggressive customers.
Note that this is in all likelihood misreporting, another source says it means '200 million dollars'.
This much change due to an alleged isolated *attempt* to lowball value would seem a bit heavy handed.
My house is assessed at a certain dollar amount. The government assessment has been accurate.
If someone offered me that sum of money to move, I still wouldn't want to. I shouldn't be forced to accept my tax estimated value and leave my house.
I don't think you'd get arrested for tax evasion, your valuation would just be rejected.
That still empowers people to randomly evict other people or inflict them with an unfair tax bill.
The current system where a property owner is free to claim ludicrous values and then have that claim rejected seems to work ok eventually. We shouldn't let shock of a potentially incorrect headline (some say it's really 200 *million* dollars, not 200 dollars) make us rethink this whole thing so quickly.
Yeah, while part of me would love to see a corporation called on shenanigans about declaring crazy undervaluation for tax dodging, on the other hand this opens up the ability for my government to vindictively seize my house if I appeal my house value.
Even if I know I can't get what their assessor says its worth, I still wouldn't want to move just because I declare a different viable price.
Yes, but Cuba doesn't really do that. That's the challenge with communism in practice, those in power to distribute it, distribute it unfairly to themselves.
Don't forget they protect that debt so that not even bankruptcy can discharge it.
They saw a problem (cost to do college was getting a bit too high and becoming too needed) and inadvertently poured gasoline on the problem by triggering a huge escalation of cost through trying to provide relief while compromising with the private sector (you can spend government money and the debts *will* be repaid, but the government will not step in to negotiate terms because *that* would just not be capitalist enough).
The state of college funding represents the worst blend of capitalism and government intervention. More government control over pricing or less government meddling in the loans would likely work better.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, this was an election themed kids hacking competition, designed for them to be able to succeed in large numbers.
It may be going too far to claim them to be 'replicas' and more like 'mockups of something that vaguely resembles the actual site'.
At least, that is the claim of the government. Meaning one of: the government helped and admits their mockups aren't reflective of the genuine implementation, the government had nothing to do with it and thus the organizers were just making a mockup, or the government is lying.
Given the age range, and the overwhelming success, but no 'the sky is falling' prior to the exercise despite many concerned researchers looking at it, I'm leaning toward this was a themed exercise to have a competition for the kids than an actual model of what's happening in reality.
If it were a Mercedes salesperson leaving it unlocked in the airport, they would call it a Mercedes issue.
Also, if Mercedes had a keyfob that would tend to unlock in the pocket, people would be questioning some human factors situations with that keyfob, even though that keyfob is working fine and would be secure if 'used properly'.
The challenge with cloud hosting is that humans suck at securing things, and in the cloud instance context they tend to make the same mistakes they make on private networks except on internet accessible contexts. Sure, they shouldn't make the mistake on private networks and that's not defensible and can be a gigantic risk, but in practice the risk is mitigated by the nature of that private network. One would *hope* being on the internet would scare people into good practice, but that does not seem to be a safe outcome to presume.
Even if a deal is 'in the works', his overeager pronouncement was ill advised and likely constitutes a securities violation. To take note of this does not require people to be in denial about a buyout.
There's a reason why every other business leader that is in this position is absolutely silent or uselessly vague about these things until they are formally announced. Sure, rumors get out, but it is unheard of for someone directly involved to come out and say it without any shred of anonymity.
I've never before seen a situation where people holding a short position have been so vilified, despite being an ever-present phenomenon across all companies. I think holding a short position as a rule is a dumb thing to do (no bounds on how badly that investment can go, not going to do better than other positive investments), but Musk and everyone that stands for him takes it a bit too personally.
Actually yes https://www.wsj.com/articles/s...
They like money, they don't like it being from a single market. They don't care about oil per se. They know they only have a finite supply of oil and the world
They know better than thinking buying out *just* Tesla and shutting it down would stop EV and renewable energy.
protects him from SEC action.
I don't see how this could possibly be true. Regardless of venue, an announcement of this nature is going to be (rightfully) subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. Doing it in an utterly public forum is *worse*, not better, if he did not, in fact, have a committed deal signed. It caused the stock to go up and he certainly benefited because the market took him at his word.
The Saudis have a lot of money and the general thought is they are eager to not only hedge, but to diversify.
Diversifying into a company that has the ambition to enable more renewable energy seems a reasonable complementary strategy. Whether Tesla shall be the company to best realize that remains to be seen. They seem to be more willing to do risky short term things than most of their competitors. Of course particularly on EV they have increasingly competent competition from the traditional automakers that have a lot of advantages like more widespread dealer and service networks, but some of those have been viable partnerships. For solar roof, they seem to be having some struggles, and it's still far cheaper just to do normal solar panels. I've no idea on their powerwall stuff.
I say the larger content seems to be clearly oriented around scientific computing.
There is a fair amount of ill-advised 'marketing' sort of propaganda that is misleading in their pages however, which is unfortunate as I think the core goal and how they go about it seems respectable enough.
Roughly, one should think of this more as a 'next gen fortran' than 'oh this will replace all your programming'.
Python with numpy has been respectable, but there's room for a language built from the ground up around technical computing.
I'm skeptical that Nintendo wouldn't have any copyrighted content of the licensed games. Someone may more authoritatively come in and say 'no, Nintendo provided no code to be included with games', but it seems probable they had some sort of library code that game developers would have included.
But if your recording violates a copyright, I don't see how one could assert copyright protection over your recording that was already in violation.
For example, going beyond a recording, the Verve sampled a symphonic rendition of a Rolling Stones song, and even had secured rights. Despite multiple layers of indirection, the guy had his credit removed and all revenue to Allen Klein...
So good luck with asserting any rights over a direct recording.