I'll also add that I'm skeptical about the vision of 'VR everywhere', as if that were the case, we'd already be seeing existing 3d modeling used in those scenarios. So yes, you'll see it in places like architecture and such, where 3d modeling already plays a role. I don't think you'll be seeing a huge industry around real estate and travel. Sure you might have a few 360 photos here and there viewed by google-cardboard like viewers, but not a huge contribution to the economic picture.
Of course, no amount of all those concerns being addressed would manage to overcome the simple reality that they are projecting that the VR specific market will be embarrassingly larger than the total gaming market today is just silly. Analysts are frequently very bad, but this is ridiculous by even those standards. Such claims are not merely overlooking uncertain risk elements that you mention, but basic math around nicely comparable data points that exist today.
This is strictly a true statement, but the degree to which it applies is irrelevant since the article is specifically about gaming, ignoring those other things.
I don't see where the parent claimed that the higher taxes would be through being elevated by UBI. His point was that the money has to come from somewhere (given the current state of economy, taxes), and in his example he believed the working class would carry a higher burden than the UBI would offset. You couldn't fund a UBI out of anything even vaguely pretending to be a 'fixed' currency without taking it from those with money, and contrary to people who sharpen the pitchforks, the 'wealthy' don't have enough to take to deliver what people want from a UBI. Now one could reasonably make the argument that things aren't that simple (money isn't fundamentally anything but an arbitrary number), but the argument gets very complex and subjective (trying to use a rational set of systems to characterize a population that frequently acts irrationally works ok most of the time, but this is a stretch so it's hard to predict).
All that said, the tax bracket confusion and deductions are two things that puzzle me the most about common talk. "No, don't pay down your mortgage early, then you lose the tax deduction!" I could either have a few thousand dollars, or not have it, but be comforted knowing it got me out of a couple hundred dollars of tax bill, brilliant!
Hell a high end PC that costs $3500 barely runs a rift smooth enough to not cause puke fountain and headache.
Huh? My i5 Ivy bridge with a GTK 660 drives my rift fine for a lot of experiences. I don't think I've seen a 'made for VR' experience that pushed it, just some non-VR projects with VR shoehorned in that had graphics so high as to push things hard.
They also have positional timewarp to smooth things out.
I too think this is way over optimistic (and plus, it's analyst BS in general). However Kinect and Wii are a tad different.
Now if you say things like those omni-directional treadmills are dead on arrival, I'm right with you. If you say the Vive/Touch controller scheme might not set the world on fire because it's too much work, again I could see that perspective, though I think it will work out better with 1 to 1 mapping to how your hands move in the real world.
However, as a 'monitor', the only downside is similar to headphones, it cuts you off from your surroundings. Otherwise, you don't have to flail your head about if you don't want to, but still the world will envelop you instead of being something on a screen. I think as a logical progression of gaming display approaches, it stands to work out well (for the same sort of audience that is obsessed with getting the latest high end graphics card, I think there will be a large overlap).
They are saying that revenues for VR/AR will be larger than revenues of all consoles and PCs combined by 60%. That's a pretty optimistic projection, than 60% more people than bother with console or pc gaming today will suddenly do so for the sake of VR. Ignoring too the fact that most pc/console gaming folks probably don't have the patience for this.
Now I'm all for it and have a DK2 myself, but know myself to be in a minority.
Now having used 3D display technology and a DK2, I'll say there simply isn't a comparison, the VR is a whole other level. The stereoscopic effect is so much cleaner than any shutter or polarized technology, and stereoscopic is but a tiny portion of what makes it substantial.
On the other hand, the portion of the population that passionate about this stuff in general is not as high. 'Gaming' constitutes 90 billion dollars *total* today, and of that only 27 billion in PCs and 25 billion in consoles, meaning only 52 billion dollars of revenue around platforms that could even *theoretically* serve interests like VR, and I wager huge chunks of that have no interest in VR. 80 billion is too optimistic.
I don't think everyone's reasons are as shallow as fashion. I used to wear glasses but stopped because it was just a plain hassle for not much benefit. I was 20/40 vision growing up and my family had me wear glasses. When I started living on my own, I skipped it. I had a eye test years later and said I know my vision is off, but just don't want to bother with glasses, to which they replied 'no, your eyesight is fine'.
But do we really need that for speech to text? We've had speech to text for a long time for such restricted vocabularies on systems that the Pi would put to shame. The commands sound like a pretty simple command set, so not so much natural language processing going on.
In a world where we have 2-3 watt processors that blow away what 120W processors could do when we first started seeing commercially viable speech to text. it seems an odd time to start acting like the client device is hopelessly incapable of doing anything but being a dumb pipe to send stuff to 'the cloud' to do the real work.
Instead we gleefully praise an infrastructure where you forever rent day to day capability, never owning the capability. It's a service provider wet dream, extreme lock in with a subscription income.
Except those directives aren't really adequate for anything but a gimmick. They don't really scale up to an autonomous flying delivery drone, nor would it accurately show how a remote operator would really be operating if not autonomous (it's tons more efficient to do controller based input to such a system that can only understand basic directives).
Per the video, the drone is probably not even following the instructions accurately. For example, the drone drifts, rather than holding position, probably because there was some breeze. Meaning it probably doesn't judge location or anything, and instead hardcodes assumptions about how long to run certain motors to acheive X degree turns, Y meters of flight.
It's a fun little hack, but could have all been done inside the Pi, without pulling in Amazon infrastructure. So it's a bit eye-roll worthy to me to tack that on for the sake of a corporate sponsorship of an event. I would have rather seen projects that pull in remote services for some meaningful purpose than just saying you pulled them in. The challenge being is that quck hacks are rarely going to need something that AWS provides that local horsepower can't provide (even 'embedded' processors are overwhelmingly capable). It could incorporate the locality of the data, and the baby nap thing could plausibly claim to enable people to conduct otherwise impractical studies, but the drone doesn't do that either.
Reading both, I can't help but to feel that Amazon services are crammed in, regardless of value.
In the drone case, at least in the US all the AWS and echo do is shamelessly plug Amazon, without providing value. In the US, private flyers must have line of sight anyway, so going over the internet is not exactly that interesting except for gratuitous plug for Amazon. Besides, barking orders to a drone seems like the least fun and least practical approach to operating it (though also showing the least sensitivity to latency, since the latency is so terrible in such a scheme to start with).
In the baby case, again the internet is not actually that relevant for a family wanting to study their own child, since they are actually living with the baby, the round trip out to Amazon and back is again gratuitous use of AWS. I particularly thought it was interesting when they reluctantly mentioned Amazon SNS, but with a disclaimer that effectively says that would be a bad idea compared to a more robust and cheaper local alerting design (i.e. 'not intended to replace a baby monitor'). In this example, one *could* imagine extending the reach of academic research more conveniently into the homes of study participants, but that might be viewed a little more creepy, hence the focus on the mostly useless incorporation of the internet to this use case.
It all highlights what makes me groan about 'Internet of Things', the very wording suggests they aren't sure exactly what they want to do, but they know we can make small enough chips/radios/antennas/sensors/batteries to put them on 'things', and some way or another we are going to find practical applications with that, come hell or high water. It's a technology-first push, rather than focused on nice and productive ways that are enabled by the technology. Of course we've long lived with such things in the industry (e.g. a huge part of supercomputing is a race who can calculate arbitrary linear algebra problems fastest, rather than talking about the real problems addressed), but the open endedness of 'things' is a new low.
One thing is that thought has been brout up for over a hundred years now. Thus far it has not been true. One day it might be, but hard to say when. Historically we've managed to develop ambitions to offset the reduction of needed labor of a new advance. We generally couldn't have foreseen how that was going to go down until it happened, so not knowing what that would look like doesn't mean we are at the end of the road.
The real problem is perceiving a world where we need people to work half as hard as they do today a 'threat'. That people should be able to have education, sustenance, shelter, and medicine without worry throughout their lifetime is not something to be avoided, but to be embraced. A number of people worry that people are wired such that this would be devastating to their psyche, and yet people retire all the time, go through college without fretting so much. Yes, once you get into a career you get caught up in it, but spending a good few months away can fix that.
Of course there's also the issue of fairness in a world that is 'partially' post scarcity. If you generally don't need most people to work, but desperately need some of them to, it can be tricky. To some extent reduced hours can alleviate, but some tasks don't lend themselves to such a strategy, and you can only have so-short of time frames for people to work (if you needed 5 minutes of work a week out of the average person, it'd be awkward and highly inefficient to work just for 5 minutes).
So one, I think bitcoin itself is pretty risky... that said if I were to accept the premise and argue from there.
I would think a 'brain wallet' would be like a 'wallet', i.e. something you have with you at any given time in case you want to spend some cash but can't get to your savings account right now. So you take on some risk on a few hundred dollars in exchange for being to spend it more easily. You move money in and out of it as needed when you get back to where your more secure setup is.
AMD's dual-core, partially shared, but partially independent has been a confusing thing. Better than hypethreading, but worse than real cores, claiming performance of real cores.
Note for all those desktop enthusiasts out there, don't get too excited. To look at Intel as an example, they go up to 4 cores per desktop socket, but go to 18 cores per socket in servers (at 150W per socket) as of this moment (can't talk about unreleased product). AMD does 8 'core' desktop processors (4 modules) and 16 'core' opteron (really 8 modules), so it's not just an Intel thing.
That is true, but also used to describe some pretty ridiculous people. People who genuinely consider themselves in the same league as people who put themselves in the way of bodily harm to advance the civil rights movement back in the day. Except they are just posting stuff on the internet and sometimes fighting against purely imagined circumstances, and sometimes launching into campaigns of harassment against the stray random person who makes even a slightly insensitive twitter message, saying they deserve to be fired and blackballed in the industry, and all sorts of things.
It's the campaigns of harassment that I find particularly unsettling, as they don't take any effort in understanding the perspective of the person who offended. For example a young man I knew in high school would say some pretty intolerant things about gay people. Ultimately it was an expression of his difficulty coming to grips with being gay himself, and fortunately he found the right friends and support to get him through it. I shudder to think if he had to go through that today in a more public forum and earn the wrath of some of these people, going after him relentlessly and trying everything they can figure out to further ruin his life moreso than how screwed up he was by his predicament.
Some of these people are more bully than 'educated caring intelligent people', doing what they can to feel better about themselves first and foremost, thinking they are doing 'good'.
I just think that people are failing to recognize that github effectively benefits from encouraging traditional centralized version control workflows but using git. They don't emphasize teaching people on how to do offline merges and peer to peer, they encourage every change to be pushed and then a pull request with a handy-dandy 'click to merge' button.
So github shouldn't get a pass for what is possible with git (they didn't make git after all). They just leverage the popularity of git to build what is for most users a traditional repository. They should be criticized for failings around uptime. Particularly as they also serve as the place people host the builds for users to download.
I think github provides value (particularly for the networking effect for collaboration) and thus I think being worryingly worse with respect to uptime is a problem.
Windows 10 is a pretty good sign they were paying *some* attention to the Windows 8 reaction.
To be fair, until they released, they couldn't gauge the reaction from the market they *wanted* in Windows 8, mobile/tablet users. Yes the desktop users may have made it quite clear how screwed up it was, but MS doesn't really need to care about them, they are a captive audience. They wanted to capture the market they couldn't get before.
That has been a long standing problem with many companies, that they strive to make software developers interchangeable cogs through process. Apply enough process and you'll get great products whether you use experienced and enthusiastic people or bottom of the barrel people who can't make more money another way.
That's what I've always hated about people's approach to status meetings (scrum and before scrum). People take up my time talking at length about what *they* successfully did at a detail level I do not need. Tell me things that are done, and don't give me details of how arduous it was to get there. Tell me if you are having a problem and would like to have some help.
I've always viewed things like I've done a good job if there's not much to say about the work done.
If a group embraces the terminology of the most popular 'process', it's probably bad. In other words, most teams are bad and use whatever is most popularized as a stand in, and tend to act however they want, but pay lipservice to the popular process to make themselves look like they are following industry best practices.
I'll add to the 'unless you have a giant team' that if you have a giant team, you've *probably* done something wrong. Most software development teams I've seen with over a hundred full time developers really would be better to have maybe a dozen or so good people. It's the mistake of conflating importance with needed manpower. Then in an effort to utilize said manpower for what should be a smaller project, very silly things happen in the architecture.
All that said, I think the suggested strategy on making the date rather than getting all the features isn't bad, so long as quality doesn't take a hit. In other words, wait until it's ready with respect to bugs, but don't let a missing feature hold you up.
Conversely, if you have no planned cadence, you can land in development hell, churning eternally without actually releasing because in the time feature A has matured, you decided to squeeze in feature B and decided it can't release without B, rinse and repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll also add that I'm skeptical about the vision of 'VR everywhere', as if that were the case, we'd already be seeing existing 3d modeling used in those scenarios. So yes, you'll see it in places like architecture and such, where 3d modeling already plays a role. I don't think you'll be seeing a huge industry around real estate and travel. Sure you might have a few 360 photos here and there viewed by google-cardboard like viewers, but not a huge contribution to the economic picture.
Of course, no amount of all those concerns being addressed would manage to overcome the simple reality that they are projecting that the VR specific market will be embarrassingly larger than the total gaming market today is just silly. Analysts are frequently very bad, but this is ridiculous by even those standards. Such claims are not merely overlooking uncertain risk elements that you mention, but basic math around nicely comparable data points that exist today.
This is strictly a true statement, but the degree to which it applies is irrelevant since the article is specifically about gaming, ignoring those other things.
I don't see where the parent claimed that the higher taxes would be through being elevated by UBI. His point was that the money has to come from somewhere (given the current state of economy, taxes), and in his example he believed the working class would carry a higher burden than the UBI would offset. You couldn't fund a UBI out of anything even vaguely pretending to be a 'fixed' currency without taking it from those with money, and contrary to people who sharpen the pitchforks, the 'wealthy' don't have enough to take to deliver what people want from a UBI. Now one could reasonably make the argument that things aren't that simple (money isn't fundamentally anything but an arbitrary number), but the argument gets very complex and subjective (trying to use a rational set of systems to characterize a population that frequently acts irrationally works ok most of the time, but this is a stretch so it's hard to predict).
All that said, the tax bracket confusion and deductions are two things that puzzle me the most about common talk. "No, don't pay down your mortgage early, then you lose the tax deduction!" I could either have a few thousand dollars, or not have it, but be comforted knowing it got me out of a couple hundred dollars of tax bill, brilliant!
Hell a high end PC that costs $3500 barely runs a rift smooth enough to not cause puke fountain and headache.
Huh? My i5 Ivy bridge with a GTK 660 drives my rift fine for a lot of experiences. I don't think I've seen a 'made for VR' experience that pushed it, just some non-VR projects with VR shoehorned in that had graphics so high as to push things hard.
They also have positional timewarp to smooth things out.
Note that the optics result in the scene focusing at a much larger distance. about 5 feet away in the current headsets.
I too think this is way over optimistic (and plus, it's analyst BS in general). However Kinect and Wii are a tad different.
Now if you say things like those omni-directional treadmills are dead on arrival, I'm right with you. If you say the Vive/Touch controller scheme might not set the world on fire because it's too much work, again I could see that perspective, though I think it will work out better with 1 to 1 mapping to how your hands move in the real world.
However, as a 'monitor', the only downside is similar to headphones, it cuts you off from your surroundings. Otherwise, you don't have to flail your head about if you don't want to, but still the world will envelop you instead of being something on a screen. I think as a logical progression of gaming display approaches, it stands to work out well (for the same sort of audience that is obsessed with getting the latest high end graphics card, I think there will be a large overlap).
They are saying that revenues for VR/AR will be larger than revenues of all consoles and PCs combined by 60%. That's a pretty optimistic projection, than 60% more people than bother with console or pc gaming today will suddenly do so for the sake of VR. Ignoring too the fact that most pc/console gaming folks probably don't have the patience for this.
Now I'm all for it and have a DK2 myself, but know myself to be in a minority.
I'll say it's a useful analogy.
Now having used 3D display technology and a DK2, I'll say there simply isn't a comparison, the VR is a whole other level. The stereoscopic effect is so much cleaner than any shutter or polarized technology, and stereoscopic is but a tiny portion of what makes it substantial.
On the other hand, the portion of the population that passionate about this stuff in general is not as high. 'Gaming' constitutes 90 billion dollars *total* today, and of that only 27 billion in PCs and 25 billion in consoles, meaning only 52 billion dollars of revenue around platforms that could even *theoretically* serve interests like VR, and I wager huge chunks of that have no interest in VR. 80 billion is too optimistic.
I don't think everyone's reasons are as shallow as fashion. I used to wear glasses but stopped because it was just a plain hassle for not much benefit. I was 20/40 vision growing up and my family had me wear glasses. When I started living on my own, I skipped it. I had a eye test years later and said I know my vision is off, but just don't want to bother with glasses, to which they replied 'no, your eyesight is fine'.
But do we really need that for speech to text? We've had speech to text for a long time for such restricted vocabularies on systems that the Pi would put to shame. The commands sound like a pretty simple command set, so not so much natural language processing going on.
In a world where we have 2-3 watt processors that blow away what 120W processors could do when we first started seeing commercially viable speech to text. it seems an odd time to start acting like the client device is hopelessly incapable of doing anything but being a dumb pipe to send stuff to 'the cloud' to do the real work.
Instead we gleefully praise an infrastructure where you forever rent day to day capability, never owning the capability. It's a service provider wet dream, extreme lock in with a subscription income.
Except those directives aren't really adequate for anything but a gimmick. They don't really scale up to an autonomous flying delivery drone, nor would it accurately show how a remote operator would really be operating if not autonomous (it's tons more efficient to do controller based input to such a system that can only understand basic directives).
Per the video, the drone is probably not even following the instructions accurately. For example, the drone drifts, rather than holding position, probably because there was some breeze. Meaning it probably doesn't judge location or anything, and instead hardcodes assumptions about how long to run certain motors to acheive X degree turns, Y meters of flight.
It's a fun little hack, but could have all been done inside the Pi, without pulling in Amazon infrastructure. So it's a bit eye-roll worthy to me to tack that on for the sake of a corporate sponsorship of an event. I would have rather seen projects that pull in remote services for some meaningful purpose than just saying you pulled them in. The challenge being is that quck hacks are rarely going to need something that AWS provides that local horsepower can't provide (even 'embedded' processors are overwhelmingly capable). It could incorporate the locality of the data, and the baby nap thing could plausibly claim to enable people to conduct otherwise impractical studies, but the drone doesn't do that either.
Reading both, I can't help but to feel that Amazon services are crammed in, regardless of value.
In the drone case, at least in the US all the AWS and echo do is shamelessly plug Amazon, without providing value. In the US, private flyers must have line of sight anyway, so going over the internet is not exactly that interesting except for gratuitous plug for Amazon. Besides, barking orders to a drone seems like the least fun and least practical approach to operating it (though also showing the least sensitivity to latency, since the latency is so terrible in such a scheme to start with).
In the baby case, again the internet is not actually that relevant for a family wanting to study their own child, since they are actually living with the baby, the round trip out to Amazon and back is again gratuitous use of AWS. I particularly thought it was interesting when they reluctantly mentioned Amazon SNS, but with a disclaimer that effectively says that would be a bad idea compared to a more robust and cheaper local alerting design (i.e. 'not intended to replace a baby monitor'). In this example, one *could* imagine extending the reach of academic research more conveniently into the homes of study participants, but that might be viewed a little more creepy, hence the focus on the mostly useless incorporation of the internet to this use case.
It all highlights what makes me groan about 'Internet of Things', the very wording suggests they aren't sure exactly what they want to do, but they know we can make small enough chips/radios/antennas/sensors/batteries to put them on 'things', and some way or another we are going to find practical applications with that, come hell or high water. It's a technology-first push, rather than focused on nice and productive ways that are enabled by the technology. Of course we've long lived with such things in the industry (e.g. a huge part of supercomputing is a race who can calculate arbitrary linear algebra problems fastest, rather than talking about the real problems addressed), but the open endedness of 'things' is a new low.
One thing is that thought has been brout up for over a hundred years now. Thus far it has not been true. One day it might be, but hard to say when. Historically we've managed to develop ambitions to offset the reduction of needed labor of a new advance. We generally couldn't have foreseen how that was going to go down until it happened, so not knowing what that would look like doesn't mean we are at the end of the road.
The real problem is perceiving a world where we need people to work half as hard as they do today a 'threat'. That people should be able to have education, sustenance, shelter, and medicine without worry throughout their lifetime is not something to be avoided, but to be embraced. A number of people worry that people are wired such that this would be devastating to their psyche, and yet people retire all the time, go through college without fretting so much. Yes, once you get into a career you get caught up in it, but spending a good few months away can fix that.
Of course there's also the issue of fairness in a world that is 'partially' post scarcity. If you generally don't need most people to work, but desperately need some of them to, it can be tricky. To some extent reduced hours can alleviate, but some tasks don't lend themselves to such a strategy, and you can only have so-short of time frames for people to work (if you needed 5 minutes of work a week out of the average person, it'd be awkward and highly inefficient to work just for 5 minutes).
So one, I think bitcoin itself is pretty risky... that said if I were to accept the premise and argue from there.
I would think a 'brain wallet' would be like a 'wallet', i.e. something you have with you at any given time in case you want to spend some cash but can't get to your savings account right now. So you take on some risk on a few hundred dollars in exchange for being to spend it more easily. You move money in and out of it as needed when you get back to where your more secure setup is.
It's actually only 4 cores, so the super fast overclocking isn't as bad as you say, it's almost half as fast as pre-overclock.
I think the complaint is that the LD_LIBRARY_PATH equivalent is doing questionable things given the conventions of the target platform.
It's hard to say as there's zero details in the article and I don't have time to research what I don't really care about that much.
AMD's dual-core, partially shared, but partially independent has been a confusing thing. Better than hypethreading, but worse than real cores, claiming performance of real cores.
Note for all those desktop enthusiasts out there, don't get too excited. To look at Intel as an example, they go up to 4 cores per desktop socket, but go to 18 cores per socket in servers (at 150W per socket) as of this moment (can't talk about unreleased product). AMD does 8 'core' desktop processors (4 modules) and 16 'core' opteron (really 8 modules), so it's not just an Intel thing.
That is true, but also used to describe some pretty ridiculous people. People who genuinely consider themselves in the same league as people who put themselves in the way of bodily harm to advance the civil rights movement back in the day. Except they are just posting stuff on the internet and sometimes fighting against purely imagined circumstances, and sometimes launching into campaigns of harassment against the stray random person who makes even a slightly insensitive twitter message, saying they deserve to be fired and blackballed in the industry, and all sorts of things.
It's the campaigns of harassment that I find particularly unsettling, as they don't take any effort in understanding the perspective of the person who offended. For example a young man I knew in high school would say some pretty intolerant things about gay people. Ultimately it was an expression of his difficulty coming to grips with being gay himself, and fortunately he found the right friends and support to get him through it. I shudder to think if he had to go through that today in a more public forum and earn the wrath of some of these people, going after him relentlessly and trying everything they can figure out to further ruin his life moreso than how screwed up he was by his predicament.
Some of these people are more bully than 'educated caring intelligent people', doing what they can to feel better about themselves first and foremost, thinking they are doing 'good'.
I just think that people are failing to recognize that github effectively benefits from encouraging traditional centralized version control workflows but using git. They don't emphasize teaching people on how to do offline merges and peer to peer, they encourage every change to be pushed and then a pull request with a handy-dandy 'click to merge' button.
So github shouldn't get a pass for what is possible with git (they didn't make git after all). They just leverage the popularity of git to build what is for most users a traditional repository. They should be criticized for failings around uptime. Particularly as they also serve as the place people host the builds for users to download.
I think github provides value (particularly for the networking effect for collaboration) and thus I think being worryingly worse with respect to uptime is a problem.
Windows 10 is a pretty good sign they were paying *some* attention to the Windows 8 reaction.
To be fair, until they released, they couldn't gauge the reaction from the market they *wanted* in Windows 8, mobile/tablet users. Yes the desktop users may have made it quite clear how screwed up it was, but MS doesn't really need to care about them, they are a captive audience. They wanted to capture the market they couldn't get before.
That has been a long standing problem with many companies, that they strive to make software developers interchangeable cogs through process. Apply enough process and you'll get great products whether you use experienced and enthusiastic people or bottom of the barrel people who can't make more money another way.
That's what I've always hated about people's approach to status meetings (scrum and before scrum). People take up my time talking at length about what *they* successfully did at a detail level I do not need. Tell me things that are done, and don't give me details of how arduous it was to get there. Tell me if you are having a problem and would like to have some help.
I've always viewed things like I've done a good job if there's not much to say about the work done.
If a group embraces the terminology of the most popular 'process', it's probably bad. In other words, most teams are bad and use whatever is most popularized as a stand in, and tend to act however they want, but pay lipservice to the popular process to make themselves look like they are following industry best practices.
I'll add to the 'unless you have a giant team' that if you have a giant team, you've *probably* done something wrong. Most software development teams I've seen with over a hundred full time developers really would be better to have maybe a dozen or so good people. It's the mistake of conflating importance with needed manpower. Then in an effort to utilize said manpower for what should be a smaller project, very silly things happen in the architecture.
All that said, I think the suggested strategy on making the date rather than getting all the features isn't bad, so long as quality doesn't take a hit. In other words, wait until it's ready with respect to bugs, but don't let a missing feature hold you up.
Conversely, if you have no planned cadence, you can land in development hell, churning eternally without actually releasing because in the time feature A has matured, you decided to squeeze in feature B and decided it can't release without B, rinse and repeat.