FileMakerFeller

miiwtwo said:

do you really think that vision pro is different comparing its competitors and will go to re invent the computer, i think this kind of article only try to convince to buy it and justify the price 'cause isnt novelty, is good but too expensive, in few months google and friends gonna sell the same concept for "less",

You don't appear to understand the article.

I think the HoloLens shows that there is a market for this type of device, but as usual Apple has come out with a much more refined version of the concept. They've invested more than a decade in AVP, and clearly they have devoted a lot of that effort into how it works, how it will be used and how it will improve over time. Other headsets have been rushed to market and designed to be as cheap to assemble as possible, with probably only one use case considered (gaming for Oculus, technical work for HoloLens).

I think Apple have chosen to ignore Oculus et al. and have instead opted for a device with a much broader set of capabilities. The value proposition is much higher than that of the HoloLens (which is also US$3500); I believe it is also higher than that of the cheaper headsets but it will face the objections of the price being roughly an order of magnitude higher. Those that can afford it will be very happy; those who will struggle to afford it may settle for the cheaper options and (like the fox and the grapes) try to convince themselves that what they can't have is not better enough to justify the price.

Price is what you pay, value is what you get.

When you've got the banks on one side trying to protect their old thing and Apple on the other side trying to protect their new thing, maybe it is time for the government to get involved.

Guidance is probably the best first step. Mandating approaches can be done when people with expertise can agree on the best path forward; not only do governments currently lack that expertise but the industry is experimenting with multiple approaches to see what works best so it's very unlikely that consensus will be reached.

I'm not an expert in the field by any means, but all of the developments I've seen so far indicate that artificial general intelligence - machines that can think and have agency - is far, far in the future. The biggest threat from the current landscape is misuse by human actors, so a focus on security and "defence in depth" allows for commercialisation with a measure of safety.

So are we going to see all the trolls who complained about Apple's iPhone patents now step up to defend Casetify?

"You can't legally protect a black rectangle the number 11" ?

winstoner71 said:

darkvader said:

Main takeaway from this article:  Ridley Scott is a dick.

And apparently he needs to stick to scifi and stay away from history.  Nobody cares if Alien movies are historically accurate.

Nobody truly cares if this is historically accurate, outside of history professors and some French film critics. We want to see the spectacle, the huge battlefield sequences that Scott is known for, and want to see Phoenix ham it up. That’s all. Nobody cared that Gladiator wasn’t note for note historically accurate. Good on Ridley for telling them to p*ss off, and come to think of it Adam Driver for doing the same when his film Ferrari got a ridiculous critique…we need more of that from the talent. 

I cared. Even a cursory introduction to the history of the Roman Empire shows that their success in battle came from the rigid formations they stuck to; the first battle scene in Gladiator showed a wild free-for-all and a complete lack of discipline that is antithetical to every account of the Roman Army.

The ending part of the movie where Maximus kills the Emperor and is allowed to live? Moronic.

There were plenty of ways to tell an inspiring story of a good soldier brought down by powerful enemies who then struggles through adversity to find redemption. The Gladiator movie chose none of those, and is the poorer for it.