Depends on what is meant by popular. In terms of participation then running, in terms of non-participatory viewers then cycling is probably more popular
I'm diving back into Linux server setup and management after being away for about 2 decades. The number of times the the top 3-5 search results are Stack Overflow questions with someone who is having the exact same issue I'm having and the top answer is 'this has been answered elseware, try searching' was almost enough to make me say, screw this I'm going back to Windows.
Yeah, if they were able to directly identified a duplicated cart then the easiest solution would be to update the console software to just not play duplicated carts. There shotgun approach is just biting them in the ass since the market has apparently already been flooded with duplicate carts and all they are doing is antagonizing people who believe they bought in good faith a legitimate game
The real issue is that most business just don't document anything to do with their processes. Chance are that there are a hand full of things that there are a good reason for doing and they do need to be done that way. Except the people that identified that original problem and came up with original solution have all left the company so now there is nobody around that has put in the effort (or been given the time to investigate) to figure out why things are done the way they are, and the last time one of the things that had been done forever was suddenly stopped it caused untold amount of chaos so now the directive is to just keep doing everything we've always done.
A major contributor to Titanic being the best selling movie by tickets sold is the amount of people that went to watch it multiple times, and going to see a movie multiple times in 1997, while not common, was not unusual because it was 1997 so what else are you going to do?
1997 was an absolutely phenomenal year for movies. Life Is Beautiful, Boogie Nights, Jackie Brown, Titanic, Donnie Brasco, The Fifth Element, Good Will Hunting, As Good as It Gets, Austin Powers International Man of Mystery, Gattaca, LA Confidential, Men in Black, Liar Liar, Amistad, The Game, Con Air, Contact.
There was a lot to do in 1997, just not as much to do without leaving home. We went to movies because they were affordable and great movies were being released.
Also, that was the era where new multiplex theaters were being built with great sound systems, so it was worth going to a theater for the high-quality experience. While quality consumer electronics are more readily available today than ever before, I feel like the vast majority today only watch media with headphones, TV speakers, or maybe a 2.1 stereo+sub setup.
IMO actual quality components are still just as remote as 20 years ago. A proper setup is more or less the same technology as it has been for decades: good speakers, good amplifier, placed appropriately, and none of this has really seen any democratization. People buy sound bars and such but these are a far cry to what an actual sound system is like that you probably need to spend in the 4 figures to achieve. Buy enough sound bars that fall apart in a couple years for a couple hundred dollars and you could have bought a proper amplifier, speakers, in a setup that is actually modular, expandable, upgradeable, and serviceable.
I have never heard of sound bars falling apart after a couple years, is that common? Every piece of sound equipment I've ever bought has lasted at least 15 years, my sound bar is 5 years old.
In general I think the sound bar audience is different from the hi-fi audio audience. I was fine with using the TV's built-in speakers until LCD TVs took over from CRTs and the built-in speakers became much tinnier and quieter because they couldn't fit quality speakers in a flatscreen TV case. I suspect most people who buy sound bars are in a similar situation.
Kind of reminds me of the beats headphones phenomenon. People had these earbuds that lacked any bass response, so they went with headphones that overdid it just to feel it. Sound bars indeed have features like better separation than tinier TV speakers but still crumble apart in comparison to even very modest bookshelf speakers you can run actual speaker wire into. Let alone a sub or a proper surround setup. Likewise with Beats and other headphones, they crumble put against the humble studio monitors like mdrv6/mdr7506 that have great separation and more faithful response to the intents of the record producer (who might very well have been using those exact headphones themselves).
Half sarcasm and half serious. Obviously there were a lot of things to do back then, but also this was a time before everyone was carrying around a device that let you contact everyone else and access information about what is going on around you. Movies were a very heavily advertised things to do, the movie theater provided both a place as well as a time to meet your friends, and watching a movie at home meant gambling that the rental place would even have what you were looking for and provided a experience that was a very noticeable step down from going to the theater.
Already seeing tons of news stories about 'ChatGPT' inducing psychosis. The one that sticks in my mind was the 35-year old in Florida that was gunned down by policy after his AI girlfriend claimed to be being killed by OpenAI.
Please explain the ways the military leaders fucked up the wars. I'm only 40 so I may not have lived through as many wars as you but the actual 'war' parts of the wars that have involved the US seem to have gone off without a hitch. It was winning the peace that proved difficult and that is a responsibility that falls on the politicians.
Well to start off the cold war timeline. The Greek civil war was an American victory, then China fell to the Communists and we spent decades arguing who lost China. Then the Soviets let off Joe 1 and it turns out the Manhattan project was heavily infiltrated by Soviet Spies which made the American nuclear monopoly a short foot note. The combination of those 2 factors resulted in the Korean War. Which was looking like all of Korea would be lost, then all of Korea could be gained until China entered, resulting in a tie. The lessons learned from Korea made the next war in the region the Vietnam War politically constrained, which succeeded in preventing China from entering the war directly like they did in Korea, but resulted in the entire country of Vietnam being lost to the Communists which was a worse outcome than the tie that was Korea.
The Gulf Wars learned the lessons of Vietnam, and the constrained vision of keeping Saddam out of Kuwait meant there was no quagmire. Kosovo was also a success, as there was regime change for the better in the former Yugoslavia.
The 2000s after 9/11 were some "fucked up wars", the US military seemed to have learned the lessons from the 90s that they should have gone farther with regime change, and forgot the lessons of the Vietnam War. Taking down Saddam didn't result in a more stable Iraq, Iraq didn't turn into a flourishing democracy. After the US withdrew from the country under Obama you have the emergence of ISIS. Obama also helped decapitate Gaddafi's regime, which made Libya less stable. The actual war parts may be successful but if they're not achieving political or strategic goals those wins do not matter.
There's an apocryphal tale of an American and a North Vietnamese general after the war:
Yes, the company I work for has started using Hololens 2. We have a program that can overlay the 3D models from our CAD program onto the physical steel assemblies for QC. When it works, it works well and enables our quality checkers to perform checks faster and more accurately than using tape measures while going back and forth looking at a 2D drawing printed on 11 x 17 paper.
The biggest hurdles is that none of the large companies think there is enough profit to be made from AR. The Hololens 2 is the only headset on the market both capable of running the program required while also being safe to use in a active shop enviroment (VR with passthrough is not suitable). Unfortunately the Hololens 2 is almost 6 years old as is being stretched to the absolute limits of its hardware capabilities. The technology is good but feels like it is only 90% of the way to where it needs to be. Even a simple revision with double the RAM and faster more power efficient processor would alleviate many of the issues we've experienced.
Ultimately from what I've seen, AR is about making the human user better at their job and there are tons of industries where it could have many applications, but tech companies don't actually want to make things that could be directly useful to people that work with their hands, so instead we will just continue to toss more money at AI hoping to make ourselves obsolete.
The biggest issue comes from area mapping. In order to keep the hologram steady and anchored you need to perform a mapping process so that the helmet recognizes both the physical steel assembly and a bit of the surrounding area to keep it steady when moving around. The 8GB of RAM puts a limit on the amount of mapping data that can be stored putting a limit of the size of assembly you can work with, and since the mapping process relies on using the helmets own software that has not been work on in years it is extremely sensitive to any sort of background movement, which means it works best in as controlled of a environment as possible.
Right now we are just using it for special projects that are complex and have little margin for error. We'd like to be able to use it for everything but that isn't feasible with where the tech is currently stuck at.
Quick question about your use case - is the 3D overlay really that important, or would you get most of the value simply seeing the blueprints in your heads-up display, maybe doing a quick finger swipe or voice command to switch between pages/images?
Yes, the 3D overlay is the entire point. A heads up display is just looking at the blueprint on a piece of paper with an additional layer of complexity, it wouldn't remove the need to manually measure, nor would it provide any assistance in spotting missing attached pieces (or some extra pieces). Once the model is overlayed QC goes from having to measure the placement of every pieces and the location of every hole to just walking around the finished assembly and ensuring that every conforms to the civil engineer approved model. A half hour process can be done faster and more precisely in 5 minutes, you notices very quickly when there is solid steel where the hologram has a hole, or thin air where the hologram shows that a plate was suppose to be welded on.
Have you looked into OpenSplat type of post-processing? You take a bunch of pictures and then let hardware create a 3d model. It's really competent and could easily create a rectified model for measurements. To get actual values, you'd need some control points, but beyond that, a pipeline that continiously creates models could be feasible.
Then your QC guys are mostly behind computers and rotated to the floor when things are identified.
Ultimately, your VR isn't doing anything more technically accurate than this.
Very interesting, and I agree with your assessment of the difficulties using the aging HoloLens.
I am curious, what size of clients are you working with and how many contracts has it realistically turned into?
I also believe proper AR hardware/software can revolutionize the QA and inspections industry.
What I am noticing is a chicken/egg problem where companies want proof it works, while also reluctant to put their money where their mouth is and invest in the R&D. Which then leads to Microsoft and similar refusing to fully invest in new AR tech.
As such, it all stays mostly in experimental and drawing board land, never quite fully reaching the market.
We work with all of the large general contractors in the steel construction industry. Right now, it's turned into one contract, but we are the second company the client has employed since the first company they hired failed to produce a single assembly that met their requirements. The client was the one that originally was using this tech since they wanted a way to do their own QC after the first experience, and we decided it was worth while pursuing ourselves since successfully pulling this project off while be a HUGE boost to our reputation. The construction industry is all about your portfolio of past projects.
QA is the big sales point of the software we are using, but there are many other potential applications for the same product. It should be possible to overlay the model on the main assembly prefab then use that to quickly mark where holes should be drilled and additional pieces attached. The other potential application that is being explored is using the holographic overlays to construct things out of the usual order, instead of building part 1 then starting part 2 since it needs to be built to conform to the first part you can instead build around the hologram so that your not relying on the previously built parts to ensure your angles are correct.
I agree about the chicken/egg problem. Its an emerging technology where the payoff might be a decade away, customers need software that will actually benefit them, developers need reliable hardware capable of running software that has practical uses, and hardware companies want to know there is a customer base. The issue is AR falls under the category of product that the customer does not know they actually want, so the only way it is going to be developed is if one of the hardware manufactures takes a leap of faith and makes the long term investment. Sadly, I feel like AR is a million dollar idea with practical uses that has to contend with a business climate where you can make billions making some doodad that collects private data then displays ads to the masses.
An additional layer of insight to the chicken/egg problem: the developer of the software we are using was founded by someone in the construction industry, not software. I think one of the issue with the adoption of AR is that there is currently a disconnect between the people who have a problem and the people who could produce a solution. Compared to 'a solution in search of a problem', AR seems to be 'a solution that is failing to introduce itself to the problems it can solve'
There are thousands of ways companies can invest to make their employees more efficient. My guess is companies are choosing to invest in lower hanging fatter fruits.
Companies have put billions into R&D, but still haven't delivered a product that surpasses the hurdle rate.
The problem is there's no growth market, there's no easy to canibalize existing market, and the tools are not "we'll buy a new one every year".
The world in which capitalism has taken hold is not one that produces incrementally better products for niche markets.
You end up mostly with passionate people improving niche markets, and if it involves hardware, we're just at the beginning of small time custom hardware makers to make a dent into this type of market need.
>>Or have Microsoft assume I have nothing better to do than watch a full presentation on how edgy their new browser is
As someone who has setting up new computers regularly dumped on them, having to click thru all of those dumb screens before being allowed to start using the browser has been the biggest contributor in my decision to ditch Windows
Ah, found your issue. You are subscribed to the incorrect mainstream view that all native Americans nations were more or less exactly the same. You'd have as much success do this as you would learning about the Roman's by studying the tribal Germanic people.
reply