I am not convinced. Your eyes are literally magnifying the pixels compared to being at a distance from a modern 2k display. You may have dense PPD in AVP but being that close to them doesn't do it any favours.
I mean, if you can see a pixel you can see a pixel, there is no getting around that. It's like once you notice a blemish you can't not notice it anymore. From what I hear from users is you can absolutely see the pixels.
I think the key detail here is that each eye is getting its own set of pixels for looking at the same virtual content. This can lead to more detail, because the pixels aren't 100% redundant (they're both looking at the content from a slightly different angle.)
If I'm looking through the AVP at a "square inch" of my virtual Mac display, it may be that each eye is getting say, a 100x100 grid of pixels in this angular area. But since each eyepiece is giving me a slightly different projection of that same inch of space, the pixels themselves are going to be of subtly different values, essentially contributing more information to what I'm looking at. This is a lot different from a "real" display, when both of my eyes are staring at the same physical pixels. I think the idea is that my brain will be combining this information into a perceptual image in a way that will appear slightly more detailed than the equivalent-sized pixels in meatspace.
> It's like once you notice a blemish you can't not notice it anymore
Interesting that you say this... because when you move your head towards a virtual object to inspect any pixels you saw, the image literally gets clearer (because you're getting "closer" to it) and you don't see the pixels any more. IME this goes a long way towards tricking my brain into thinking the pixels aren't real and therefore aren't there. (I've been using my AVP for real work all day today and I've been mostly very happy with it. The resolution is absolutely the least of my concerns, and it looks subjectively phenomenal to me.)
I do wonder about the actual material constraints. My thought is, will it even be possible to make something so slight that it becomes an everyday piece of tech like the iPhone, or is it destined for entertainment and casual work?
Batteries are heavy, the optical aspect is bulky, heat dissipation is challenging. I haven't seen any tech on the near horizon that can answer those challenges. I wonder what Apple has in their R&D plans.
Ultimately even the behaviour of big polluters is driven by consumer demands. Consumers make financial choices that are incongruent with their values, all the time.
If consumers didn't demand so much cheap energy we would have less coal burning power stations, for example.
People fund corporations, we have to pay for alternatives which are usually a significantly higher cost that we refuse to accept.
Narratives that corporations that are responsible for a majority of pollution are BS. The corporations are at the mercy of our individual wallets.
I do think it's a government's role to unify and lead people through this. Provide quality alternatives, support offramping, etc. Without this essential cultural contract it just won't work.
Individual effort is only meaningful if it's coordinated and a majority of people buy into it. But we can't get that leadership behind the effort if we, the people, just keep voting it out.
So while it's admirable to individually "do your part" we know for a fact the overwhelming majority of people don't actually give a flip enough to prioritize the planet and work together.
Raindrops do contribute to floods, but you need coordination to get there.
4-5 liters! Two liters of green tea typically contains over 400mg of caffeine which is the upper limit recommended for adults. This guy was consuming around 1g of caffeine a day.
I am quite sensitive to caffeine and yet I regularly drink green tea, typically around a liter and never get that weird anxiety I get from too much coffee. Maybe it's just that tea has less...
On the other hand green tea gives me nausea if I didn't eat anything in the morning.
I regularly consumed in excess of 1g of caffeine during my early to mid 20s, either via coffee, green tea, black tea, or mate, or mixtures thereof. I don't think 1g is a very rare dose?
A judge will simply throw out any evidence that was facilitated by a lie. Any good defence lawyer would wield this just like they wield bad chain of custody etc.
Nope, the most competent defense lawyers are probably the federal defenders, who is backed by the resources of the feds, and have a much lighter case load, so they're able to actually spend the necessary time to mull over the minutia. They don't get to pick their clients and are frequently forced into being generalists, but on the federal level a lot of the "small time" crimes are kicked down to the state level. The feds prosecute terrorism, the local prosecutors prosecute murder. The thing is, the public have no idea what makes for a good attorney in any particular field (and it's not the jingle or Cellino and Barnes would probably be Supreme Court justices before the firm broke up), and public defenders are among the very few who have no choice in selecting their clients, the strength of the case, and with 80-120 open cases at a time you either really believe that your clients are all innocent or you absolutely need to hold the state to account as a matter of principle or you won't make it through the misdemeanor docket, never mind anything more serious or more sordid (mental health, juvenile).
Public defenders don't get into the line of work as a backup option. At least at my law school, they didn't recruit, because frankly they can't beat private firms or even the prosecutors on just about anything but the possibility of being on the right side of history. The pay barely covers interest on your loans, even during trials you have to run out to fill the meter every 4 hours where I was at - only the police got free parking. Everyone in my class with my skillset ended up at an IP firm or doing in house work somewhere, mostly in the Seattle area but also down to California. I don't regret a minute of the work, but in the grand scheme of things it's impossible to make a difference on any scale when you are an active participant in the system which is inherently skewed and allows prosecutors so much leeway and so much coercive power that the police can totally get away with not outright lying in interrogations and just play on the ignorance of the accused and implied threats and achieve the same result. The lying is just the most fun a cop can have without planting a gun on someone.
Relying on photos and signatures isn't ridiculous at all, we did that for decades and it served a purpose. What you are seeing is one government that is authoritarian on ID, and another that is prioritizing other things.
Of course the government databases via APIs is more secure, but that doesn't make everything else ridiculous.
Saying the US isn't modern because of this one thing is silly. The US ostensibly leads technological investment, has the an advanced military, puts rockets in space and recovers them, had the internet before most of the world, iPhone, all the software we all use the world over, the list goes on.
But the Bible is clearer on this than all Christian orgs.
Life starts at first breath according to Genesis 2:7.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.”
And numbers 5 that has a recipe for a potion that will allegedly identify an adulterous woman and cause her to abort.
“27And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.“
Sed contra ruah (breath) meaning that people are not of concern to God before they take their first breath - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). So even if people were not people before they were born, God cares about them before they are people. But then we have "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43), said to a pregnant Mary by St. Elizabeth. If Christ is fully man and Mary is already "the mother of God" when she holds Christ in her womb then people are people before they are born. So we must be misunderstanding something about what Genesis 2:7 means.
As for drinking dirty water from the floor of the temple (literally, sweep up some dust and put it in a cup with water - not an abortifacient) - the trial is asking God to reveal the truth or falsity of the woman's claim that she is virtuous (much in the same way as asking someone to take an oath in court - the bad outcome in both cases is falling under the judgement of God and receiving in some measure justice for the offense of blaspheming by asking God to witness to your lie before men).
> It makes me immensely sad that people have so many misconceptions about Catholics.
What are these misconceptions? Catholicism uses shame to induce conformity, has had numerous priests abuse children (and protecting the offenders), has a long history of violence against non-adherents, historically deeply homophobic, and so on. All of that is factual.
Edit: Oh! And now I remember, they killed and buried hundreds of children in Canada at their "schools" for indigenous people. Graves unmarked, families never knew what happened to the kids. But it's OK! Pope here said sorry, sort of, after being pressured, for decades. Also they found graves. Canadian govt. couldn't give a rats ass because the church is as powerful as governments.
No religious flamewar on HN please. I realize the parent more or less started it but it's quite against the HN guidelines to take the bait this vigorously.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
A modest proposal: perhaps if you were to teach your userbase why their thinking is objectively incorrect the frequency of these spectacles would decrease over time.
I don't see why. Consider the enlightenment, the rise of science subordinating religion, the fact that humans who have attended school are smarter on average than those who have not, the theory that you scolding people for violating the rules improves behavior, etc.
It certainly isn't physically impossible, but I acknowledge that it may be metaphysically impossible.
Just because some people do bad things does not mean you get to paint the whole group with those crimes. Imagine if you had said, "Black people are criminals, because a black person robbed the liquor store down the street last week." We all (hopefully) recognize the deep racism in this statement!
Unfortunately, there are parts of the country where this type of racism is acceptable and even common. There as similar attitudes towards Catholics, due to America's history as a predominately protestant country. The formula is the same both way - pick a heinous crime from a few members, blame it on the group as a whole, and feel smug about yourself.
The rate of child sexual abuse among Catholic priests is lower than that of Protestant pastors, which in turn is even lower than that of public schoolteachers.
The issue is that the catholic church covered up the abuse, and in some cases even moved offending priests to other parishes where they continued to abuse children.
Yes; school districts and teachers unions do this as well sometimes. It's an institutional problem, and a difficult institutional problem to solve. Just about every institution that works with children has dealt with the same problem--this famously bankrupted the Boy Scouts of America, for instance. And statistically, the Catholic Church has done a better job than most institutions.
Is this globally? Is this just in your own experience?
In the case of Australia which had a five year long Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse of children that took in tens of thousands of interviews across schools and all religuous institutions the final report included:
Many children have been sexually abused in religious institutions in Australia.
Based on the information before us, the greatest number of alleged perpetrators and abused children were in Catholic institutions.
In many religious institutions, the power afforded to people in religious ministry and the misplaced trust of parents combined with aspects of the institutional culture, practices and attitudes to create risks for children.
Alleged perpetrators often continued to have access to children even when religious leaders knew they posed a danger.
We heard that alleged perpetrators were often transferred to other locations but they were rarely reported to police.
The Catholic Institutions in Australia with the worst behaviour were the Christian Brothers who operate globally and there was no evidence seen that as an international group dealing with the education of minors, most often orphaned minors, their behaviour in Australia was somehow better or worse than their behaviour elsewhere - they rotated bad priests in and out, dodged responsibility, and hands down "won" the prize for most children abused.
So what??? If my neighbour murdered children would that be mitigated by a serial killer in the next town over?
Do people really have this much cognitive dissonance that they lose the ability to think? Like how much delusion do you have to be under to even say the above and think it makes it better for Catholics.
Even one priest raping a child under the protection of the church is entirely unacceptable.
Nobody is saying it is acceptable. The problem is every time the Church is brought up somebody has to talk about the abuse/cover up regardless of the topic. It is completely irrelevant to this thread.
Nobody does this with public schools. If people always brought up the abuse and cover ups by teachers and unions regardless of the topic they would be down voted and told it is not relevant to the topic.
If people actually cared about making abuse and coverups known they would bring it up every thread schools are brought up. Instead they only do it with the Church. It is almost as if they just want to attack the Church and ignore it in their own preferred abusive institutions.
>I still don't get what the problem is. What does the asymmetric treatment between schools and church abuse have to do with the facts?
Nothing.
>So you are saying I don't actually care about the abuse coverups? You think I have another agenda? You have a sick mind
I don't know what you believe. I think if somebody is willing to randomly (completely unrelated to to the topic) bring up abuse by the Church in every thread, but is not willing to do the same thing for schools it shows they have a bias.
I have no issue accepting that abuse has happened in the Church and it is despicable. My issue is nobody seems to care about the much larger abuse problem in schools.
>It's not that, at all. Shame on you for trying to reframe it as such.
Please explain the asymmetric treatment if it is not because people on HN in general don't like the Church, while they do like public schools.
You should read the comments. The top comment I am replying to specifically opens the door on this stuff. They challenged that people have "misconceptions", I am showing how those concepts that are held about the church are actually very real and substantiated.
> Please explain the asymmetric treatment if it is not because people on HN in general don't like the Church, while they do like public schools.
When you find a post on HN that talks about public schools maybe this topic will open up there too, and you can have your day there.
> people on HN in general don't like the Church
I don't like psychopaths either, and for good reason. I don't like the Church because of what it has enabled, the lies, the hypocrisy, and so on. You are trying to frame it as HN folks have a hard on for going after the church for no good reason. Well, lots of reasons have been listed once the OP basically said "there is no good reason to object to the church, it's all misconceptions. Lol.
> My issue is nobody seems to care about the much larger abuse problem in schools.
This isn't true. You just happened to come to a comment section that is talking specifically about the church and you are mad because it's not talking about what you want to talk about. Why not go post a tech story about schools, and then find someone challenging misconceptions about schools.
These comments aren't trying to nefariously undermine the problem in schools, that's just you being frustrated, or whatever is motivating you to get mad.
Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar, regardless of which religious group you have a problem with. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> So what if it's not unique to Catholicism? I was asking specifically what the misconceptions are. You've redirected.
As someone who left Catholicism for Wicca and then eventually gave up on religion in general, I think it's valid to point out that these flaws are not unique to Catholicism.
I would say that in pointing at all those things it has done wrong, you are implicitly saying that that these traits are unusual — but we're all a bunch of monkeys, it's really hard to get us to be nice to each other, and it's really easy for Machiavellian sadists to rise to power in every institution.
> I think it's valid to point out that these flaws are not unique to Catholicism.
In what way? Does pointing it out change the facts? Why can't we have a discussion about how Catholicism is objectively hypocritical and not have to discuss all of the other things that are wrong in the world?
In the specific way I wrote in the very next sentence.
You're welcome to point out the flaws and hypocrisies all you like, though I know from my experience as an angry bisexual Wiccan teenager that had to go to a Catholic school and study the bible as part of my education, that it does little good unless you have the goal of looking pompous — especially when the very line you were quoting was
> It makes me immensely sad that people have so many misconceptions about Catholics.
rather than
> It makes me immensely sad that people don't realise Catholics are uniquely perfect.
The former does not imply perfection, nor even an absence of hypocrisy.
Correct. Organizations besides the Catholic church also get criticized for that kind of behaviour. (To various degrees, due to public awareness, religious or media or political or national or personal bias, or the fact that nobody outside the West Nowhere Parish in Nowhere cares about a regional, 800-member church scandal.)
The Catholic church is a big organization. As in any big organization, there are aspects of it that are good, aspects of it that are OK, and aspects of it that are utterly, irredeemably rotten. And it's up to the church to figure out how to navigate that complexity.
Given how hard it's been fighting accountability in this space, even very recently, I can't say they are doing a great job of navigating it, but that's just my opinion.
That may be a bit strong. What can be said is that a lot of the initial media outrage regarding the residential schools in the last few years were based on possible gravesites, discovered using ground-penetrating radar. However, multiple excavations have so far been unable to confirm those gravesites at the scales predicted, some of them even turned out to contain no human remains at all [0]. That does not excuse anything, but I find it troubling how many fairly strong claims are made in this thread with zero citations/evidence to back them up.
Over 3k children buried with little to no documentation, families not informed, kids never returned to their loved one.
I don't think what I have said is strong at all. The reports are eyeopening, the level of care afforded to these kids is abysmal. The Church stood in the way of providing documentation for families to find their kids. Basically buried them and forgot where.
The fact we can't find these children is the "strong" complaint I have. You are suggesting that because we can't find over 3000 children.
The discoveries of unmarked graves began to make international headlines in May 2021, starting with the detection of 215 potential graves at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. This was followed by several other significant findings, including over 600 potential graves at the Marieval Indian Residential School site in Saskatchewan and 182 at the former St. Eugene's Mission School in British Columbia, among others.
All of that sounds like a very strong motivation to feel the way I do. I should not have to explain how this mistreatment is all racially motivated, too.
Lots of evidence of abhorrent mistreatment, over 3k lost children in hundreds of potential burial sites and you have the bravado to say "no one has been found" as if that means nothing is to be found.
People downplaying this stuff makes me want to vomit.
The article linked does not support the thrust of your comment.
"In total there are presently 4,126 children within the national student memorial register.[15] Research efforts by the NCTR are ongoing, and this number will increase over time."
There are clearly more gravesites than we currently know about. The scale of this atrocity is beyond what was predicted.
I was referring specifically to the media coverage in 2021 and later that presented fairly large numbers (in the hundreds) of possible graves. However, per the article, none of them have been confirmed yet and a number of them even debunked.
I am not denying that there are large gravesites or that terrible things happened at those schools.
Is this[0] something you are questioning as being real news? Those are actual found bodies, 600 graves is significant amount of bodies that families never got to find out about. You know, people are alive today that have direct connection to those kids. It's not something that happened so long ago that it's just a tragedy of the past. People should be held accountable.
Oh so you were referring specifically to one of dozens of these schools "Kamloops" . Because there are undoubtedly several hundred of these graves with well over a hundred already confirmed.
Take a look a little further down the page and you can see a list with the numbers of suspected and confirmed graves per school clearly laid out. The first three examples already put the number at over a hundred.
I dont know where you imagine all those 4,126 children went when they died if not into unmarked graves?
You're sort of singling out Catholicism though. Islam does all those things much much worse than Catholicism ever has - in the present day too! I'm not Catholic and I don't care to defend them. Still, I don't want them singled out when Islam is demonstrably worse in every way.
Bill c-18 was such a harmful, corrupt, mess that it really demonstrated the risks of doing business in a country in an oligopoly. It pretended to be about journalism, but in the end was just a shake-down with most of the proceeds going to Bell and Rogers (big surprise).
It was so bad that even someone like me - who really wants more support for journalists - had to root for Facebook and is glad that FB never backed down!
Yeah, I'm curious what's going on. Canada seems to be the only developed country without Bard at this point. (US, UK, EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan... all there.)
I mean, if you can see a pixel you can see a pixel, there is no getting around that. It's like once you notice a blemish you can't not notice it anymore. From what I hear from users is you can absolutely see the pixels.