radarthekat
About
- Username
- radarthekat
- Joined
- Visits
- 342
- Last Active
- Roles
- moderator
- Points
- 8,966
- Badges
- 3
- Posts
- 3,944
Reactions
-
Up close and hands on with Apple Vision Pro at Apple Park
Actually the limiting factor will be physics. The Vision Pro extends a fair distance in front of the face not merely because there’s a lot of stuff in there, but because they have to mount the displays a minimum distance from the eyes, and that distance is farther than a pair of sunglasses sit in front of a wearer’s eyes. So it may never be able to be incorporated into a pair of glasses. Google Glass did something different. This level of immersion isn’t likely to be doable closer to the eyes.Xed said:
Of course we were. Untess you're a conspiracy theorist, we landed there in 1969.eightzero said:
In 1963 we were not 5-6 years away from landing on the moon.Xed said:
1) They've moved away from i-naming scheme.h4y3s said:Remember folks, this is just an early prototype of the eventual "Apple iGlasses". This one built for programmers and developers to get their hands on something that works before they roll out the final product, which will look more like a pair of Ray-Ban's and you will wear all day! Maybe in five or six years.
2) We are not 5 or 6 years away from getting an M-series chip (or any of the other HW) into something the size and weight of a pay of Ray-Bans.
Clearly we were, and it was obvious since we already had the same SoC in a much smaller Mac Studio. All they did was effectively get PCIe slots in the chassis from the previous Mac Pro.In 2017 we were not 5-6 from this device or a Mac Pro like they showed yesterday.
Sure it was as it's just a iteration.Or a camera like what it on the iPhone 14.
Huh? Was that sentence suppose to say something?Come to think about it, Apple does still seem to see a lot of iMacs, iPhones, and iCloud services these days.
Outside of your beyond ridiculous comparisons the bottom line is that your suggestions that VR goggles could be the size and weight of a pair of Ray-Bans in half a decade without anything to back up that projection is not just silly, but downright stupid. These aren't stand-alone AR glasses like Google Glass, but offer a fully immersive VR experience. Even if the tech could reasonably shrink to fit everything inside of a pair of lightweight sunglasses in a handful of years (again, it can't), you're still missing the fundamental issue with making a VR headset that is open around the sides, top and bottom as is the case with a pair of Ray-Bans.
-
iPhone 16 rumored to have iPhone 12-like vertical camera arrangement
Who knows, maybe had to do with making room for the periscope camera in the pro max model.
-
Apple's diversity efforts are 'selfish & practical' says head of developer relations
Because 'rules.' You don't get to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater and you don't get to spout obvious and blatant racism here. You can disagree with my judgement regarding what was on display in the post that resulted in the ban, but my role here requires that I make such judgements and enforce the rules. Otherwise AI should replace me, and they are free to do so at any time. My role here is unpaid, voluntary and at the discretion of the AI staff. If they disagree with any of my calls they can and should remove my moderator status, no hard feelings.docno42 said:
Ah yes, the ad hominem - always the ultimate argument from the position of greatest strength.radarthekat said:Blatant racism is a ban from these forums.
How about instead of attacking people you discuss the ideas? If your ideas aren't crap then you don't have to constantly switch back to discussing people instead.
-
Apple's diversity efforts are 'selfish & practical' says head of developer relations
If you go back to the 1950s, where girls were taught home economics and boys were taught mechanics or carpentry in the American school system and at home, you found men out working after graduating and women waitressing or filling secretarial roles until they married. That was an extreme example of this preference you may think is inborn. In those days a female engineer would have been seen as an oddity, out of the ordinary.docno42 said:
What you and most of the off the wall left seem hell bent on ignoring is that men and women have different preferences. "True equality" is the worst kind of projecting. Stop trying to fix non-existant problems.radarthekat said:
What you suggest needs to start in schools ignores the fact that school age children are very often influenced by role models they see in society. What’s missed by your stance is that it takes a generation to prime the pump for true equality.Fast forward and women have bigger ambitions? Why? Did natural evolutionary forces, in just a few generations, suddenly kick in, ala Stephen J Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory? No. Society changed, more young girls were exposed to a more equal education and were taught that they 'could' choose a wider array of careers, and that it was acceptable to have career ambitions. As this transition proceeded, girls still saw that many fields were very much entrenched male domains, and it took some hutzpuh on the part of a female to break into those fields, to dare to compete with the boys, so to speak. It takes a generation, or two, for these types of barriers to fall and it takes role models.So the world has not remained static since the 1950s, nor should we stop where we are now. There's still more work to be done by society before I think we'll be at the point where young girls see the full range of career opportunities as being viable options. It's true that women have a natural imperative, to create a family, and that certain careers demand a longer time in school to qualify and a longer commitment of years on the job to reach full mastery, but there are women who have opted to become doctors, a career path no doubt opened to their eyes via the nursing field. And those female doctors have found a way to balance both career and family ambitions, I hope. Role models within other STEM fields will show young girls that there's possibly a way for them to balance both a demanding career (once the domain of men) and the desire to have children (the natural imperative of women).We won't truly know what the aggregate preferences of women are until society is structured to allow them to pursue their full array of ambitions without prejudice or constraint. Just as we didn't know in the 1950s how many career paths women would choose to pursue if they weren't conditioned in childhood to see motherhood and family as their overwhelmingly primary role.One note: I've been living in The Philippines for the last six years, and this place shares a lot of similarities with America in the 1950s. Girls are taught that family is EVERYTHING. Society here works, except for the 40% stuck in abject poverty and the number of teenage mothers. When I say it works, I mean that people seem happy and smile easily. But they simply have no means to better their situation. Forces here keep them ignorant and humans make the best of what they have and size their dreams accordingly. As an American I cannot imagine in my worst dreams of hell living my life in their shoes, as I would bet that you, as a man, wouldn't want to be constrained in your life choices as girls were in the 1950s, a decade before laws we're changed to allow women the simple privilege of having their own bank account without a man co-signing to open it. Can you imagine?In case you can't, watch this video that I spotted today. This is not me, not my YouTube channel. This is just one of the many YouTubers who show what life is like here. Extrapolate as needed.
-
Apple's diversity efforts are 'selfish & practical' says head of developer relations
This doesn't work in fields where generations of people in a specific group haven't been inspired to follow a dream of being in that field, or worse, have been denied the opportunity to participate or become educated suitably to work in that field. Meritocracy only works if every potential candidate had been given the same opportunity to develop the needed skills or talents. It takes a generation, at least, to get to that point. In the interim companies like Apple are trying to place into these jobs and roles people who can be seen as role models to inspire others who come from the same underrepresented group (whether that be color, gender, religion, whatever). Apple also has initiatives in place to help schools deliver the education and tools needed by kids, so that we can hope to create a generation who all had a fair start. And then those blind auditions certainly could be applied.JP234 said:
Perhaps corporations could conduct interviews the way our Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducts auditions: blind. Selectors only hear the musician's instrument, no heel clicks coming in, no voices, no hint about anything but ability. Probably has something to do with why 70% of the strings are oriental, but it's absolute meritocracy, so I'm fine with it. Especially when I hear the orchestra play.blastdoor said:The best products are those that the designers/engineers would want to use themselves. To make products for a diverse consumer population, it can be useful to have employees who share the preferences and needs of those customers. So long as that’s the sort of logic that motivates DEI, DEI is fine. The trap is to start treating jobs like cookies to be distributed fairly. Companies can and do fall into that trap, which is bad for everyone. Sounds like apple has the right motivation here.
