macplusplus

dysamoria said:

macplusplus said:

AppleInsider said:

Two sets of the same daily heart rate variability data collected from one Apple Watch were collected, covering the same period from December 2018 until September 2020. While the sets were collected on September 5, 2020, and April 15, 2021, the data should have been identical given they dealt with identical timeframes, but differences were discovered.

Even medical-grade devices update their firmware. Are those updates "transparent" ? Do you know how that medical-grade ECG machine of yours reports those "bundle blocks" supposedly existing in your heart? So stop making stupid assumptions and thank Apple for refining its algorithms and backwardly user data. This just shows Apple's serious commitment to the integrity and accuracy of user health data.

Whether that "revision" is suitable to your research project is not my concern nor Apple's business. Go find some funding...

Medical-grade devices generally have simpler designs and more reliable sensing mechanisms because they’re not designed to be a small, standalone, luxury wrist computer.

tht said:

It's frustrating when the question is when the Mac will get a touchscreen, or when the iPad can run macOS. I'd prefer to ask when iPadOS will get better multitasking, a better audio subsystem, a Terminal app, a VM app, a better filesystem app, a better virtual keyboard, a virtual trackpad, better text selection, etc. So, a touch first OS with more functionality.

canukstorm said:

macplusplus said:

More personalized Siri... Easy to utter, extremely hard to conceive and implement. The biggest drawback of current LLMs is their lack of "context retention". Ask any of the most powerful LLMs they will list that among their limitations. Even in a single session they have difficulty on maintaining an established response pattern in repetitive tasks. A Siri that responds with a different personality everytime is intolerable. Maintaining the context is crucial even for an avatar-level "personality". Apple's refusal of a premature jump lnto the "AI smartphone" bandwagon has certainly serious technical reasons. Remember that Apple has already laid out a very solid foundation with the A18 chip designed specifically to run on-device LLMs, and before that, the Neural Engine. In that sense, the "lack of context" shared by Gruber and the author is even more amazing than that of LLMs.

"Remember that Apple has already laid out a very solid foundation with the A18 chip designed specifically to run on-device LLMs, and before that, the Neural Engine"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Apple's lost trust.  It's their job now, to earn it back.

fastasleep said:

macplusplus said:

fastasleep said:

macplusplus said:

fastasleep said:

macplusplus said:

That's obvious because a tethered headset and joystick are ridiculous things. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat sreen why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?

There is no VR unless you introduce your very self into the scene. That requires an untethered headset and a body kit.

You have obviously not used this technology. The reason you wear the headset is so you can move and look around in a fully three dimensional environment. This is not the same as moving a controller and watching your view pan around on a TV in front of your eyes. A good example is an interactive "film" type thing on a miniature stage with claymation type characters I was watching, where you could literally peer around a corner to see another character walking down a street that you couldn't see before. Or walking toward an object and looking down into an opening in the top of a ship to see the characters doing stuff inside of it, as if the object is right in front of your chest. By moving your head, and your feet (to a limited degree). Or in a 3D world where you're standing in an alley, and you can look up and crane your head to peer around a fire escape, or around a corner to spot an enemy. It "feels" like you can reach out and literally touch things in front of you. As I said in my previous posts, trying to describe it is difficult. Trust me, it's nothing like your 2D flat screen.

Edit: maybe you're focusing on the tethered aspect of it, but it's not that big of a deal. Nobody is going to set up a full walk-around multi-camera setup in their living room. The PSVR limits you to probably the average amount of space that most people have in front of their TV/living room area. Move controllers give you wireless dual hand controllers, some software just uses the DualShock controllers which is better suited to some types of games, etc.

Yes it works exactly as you describe and that is the easiest way to break your neck in a game. If you have to turn your head left right fast enough to fight bandits you'll get a neck injury before even completing level one. This is why they include a game controller, thanks to the game controller you don't have to shift left right so fast, the game controller shifts the view before your eyes. And that makes both game controller and the VR pointless, because since I need a game controller to shift the view, I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?

Break your neck? Are you joking?

That's not how it works — head tracking changes your view, not the controller. That's the whole point! Nothing is made pointless by a controller to any degree whatsoever.

Again, you've obviously not used VR in any capacity. Go pick up a Google Cardboard, it'll give you a decent experience for a few bucks and you'll quickly understand why you're so completely wrong about how it works.

You've obviously not played games in any capacity. All games are written for keyboard+mouse combo, or game controller. Not a single game re-written from scratch uniquely for VR has been announced yet.

I have no idea what you're talking about — I have played several games specifically developed for VR with both Move controllers and the DualShock controller, neither of which control your view. Your head movement tracking changes your view, not the controller. That's the whole point. You're describing how these games function in a way that does not mirror reality and I have no idea why.

brucemc said:

macplusplus said:

AR in the car is a very stupid dream. People don't even read traffic signs, yet they will read tiny digital labels appearing in the heads-up display?

Why would the labels, or other such information, be tiny?  A HUD (the old term for this, before AR in the windshield:) can display critical information to the driver, without them having to take their eyes off the road.  Highlighting pedestrians in the path, cyclists, etc.  Showing turning directions.  Lots of good possibilities - it isn't a stupid dream.

randominternetperson said:

By the way the headline is misleading since it implies that Apple confirmed this.  

sog35 said:

rogifan_new said:

Apple's iPhone 7 camera tops competition

But 6 phones got a higher score...headline doesn't seem to match story. 

Those phones ranked above the iPhone7 are MUCH larger phones. Of course they will have higher scores because of having more room for a bigger lense. Just wait till the review of the 7+ come out.