This. Absolutely this. Presumably the foldable flips back up and extends to just beneath the camera bump, hence most of the phone is effectively double the thinnest part of the iPhone air.
This is an interactive example, isn't it? It doesn't help me understand non-interactive proofs like SNARKs/STARKs, where the verifier isn't communicating live with the prover.
* The prover commits to a starting value (public input)
* Instead of waiting for an interactive challenge, they hash it and use the resulting hash output as if it were a challenge
If we believe the hash is a random oracle (as we do for cryptographic hash functions), then it is hard for the prover to manipulate the challenges. Is that it?
You got it. There are a few nuisances, e.g. the "theorem statement" must be hashed as well so that proving that name=Mickey has a different oracle than proving that name=Goofy, but your basic understanding is correct.
This is really interesting, I remember seeing the Mar/IO video and being psyched that someone took Kenneth O. Stanley's work and applied it to something fun, but I had no idea how impactful that video actually turned out to be. Having spent O(hundreds) of hours reading his papers and thinking about those ideas a decade+ ago, this interview serves a really interesting role for me personally, because it connects conversationally in a way papers don't.
I'm rather new to the concept of objects and morphisms myself, but I love how fields like category theory allow one to "zoom out" far enough in abstraction that two seemingly different concepts are actually the same applied to distinct contexts.
No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is.
The whole point of emulation is that you want to play content for which the original hardware no longer exists. And so there is no harm being done to anyone.
This situation is obviously quite different because Nintendo is being harmed.
That's all well and good if true, but Patreon is based in the USA, so even if the people behind it aren't (which they presumably are, as the stated "Tropic Haze LLC" is also USA-based), they have to comply with the laws in that jurisdiction.
Creating a private copy and using it is absolutely legal. Breaching an "effective" copy protection scheme can be illegal, but "effective" is defined through case law, and can range from "DVD DRM isn't effective" to "rolling ciphers on YouTube are effective" depending on court.
Perhaps that's true, but not because it would be piracy. Backing up media for personal has a pretty strong fair use claim, so I don't think it should be considered copyright infringement.
But there is also the DMCA, and the anti-circumvention provision, which can be attributed a lot more to the user backing up their game than it can be to the developers of the emulator. But that wouldn't be the same thing as copyright infringement.
That said, if the"interoperability exception" applies to anything at all, I feel like it should apply here. You are circumventing copy protection mechanisms for the explicit purpose of interoperability with other software.
On moral grounds, I also have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with someone circumventing copy protection mechanisms to make a copy of a thing they bought to use for personal use. The fact that that could be potentially illegal at all is disgusting.
If only we had a universal way to easily distribute data, without need to heavily license it, instead opting for easily accessible licenses from reputable sources at market prices...
(we do, but torrents got a bad name)
Netflix was a success not because it was a streaming service with a license fee, but because it provided unfettered access to data for a small fee.
Of course, now there are AIs which can or will shortly be able to trivially reproduce most data formats, so that's a separate issue as far as that goes (and that's bad too, if AI spells the complete death of DMCA), but it really didn't need to be this complicated.
Make your brand well recognized, make your products easy to obtain, go after the pirates not the users. I own a switch and TBH a lot of my enthusiasm is pretty chilled by Nintendo's dickery - I'm less likely to purchase their products (and I'll elsewhere with non-Nintendo stuff - and Nintendo's stuff is honestly becoming a lot of locked down crap these days).
You need to use a less general term than 'emulation' to make that claim.
Your OS emulates. The companies that made the chips you run them on emulate their own hardware. The company in the headline emulate their own video game hardware and sell it to their customers.
This really feels like a Quest 2 + 1, which is fine. Same but better specs.
But the site appears to me like it’s positioning it as a Vision Pro competitor when it’s not even in the same league. “We have AR too so it’s the same!” The Vision Pro seems very clearly marketed at a different segment and primary use case to me.
The problem is that if Apple (or a 3rd party on the platform) figures it out I think there’s a good chance it can’t work well on a significantly cheaper headset like the Quest 3.
Then the Quest 3 may be the cheap thing that doesn’t do what people want. Like when you didn’t get an XBox 360 at Christmas because mom/dad got you a $25 TV plug-in Pac-Man game because “it’s the same thing”.
But Meta wants in on the party. And I feel like they’re trying to get their sales before the Vision Pro comes out and immediately becomes the thing that they get very unfavorably compared to (except price). Just like they rushed out a pre-announcement this was coming around the Vision Pro announcement.
Even if Apple face plants or never finds “it”and the Vision Pro isn’t successful I don’t see Meta being either. All these years and it’s still kind of “eh”.
I feel like the "killer app problem" is not unique to the Quest, but the whole VR ecosystem. I'm being cautiously optimistic Apple will finally break through and find an app that will appeal to the masses, and even though the price is not attainable for 95% of the population, that will trickle down and find it's way to the broader market.
As stated before, YMMV, because the killer apps for me have been iRacing and DCS in VR. If you aren't into simulation games, VR isn't really there yet for your genre. FPS's are getting there, kinda. Your brain still has to remind your body to crouch. Beatsaber, tennis, there's some novelty games but if you're asking yourself why would you buy VR, you already answered your own question. You shouldn't. Apple's headset, like the iPhone, will take some time to get apps working and finding their market fit. I do have hopes that Apple's headset brings VR into a more "stable" marketplace. Instead of just the few niche titles here and there that you play with Valve's headset or Oculus/Meta Quest.
Simulation games will ALWAYS benefit from more VR, more hardware, more wheels, more human interface controls.
What if they can’t? What if whatever it is that makes the app so compelling automatically rules it out on the Quest 3 for some reason? What if it demands a better input method or higher resolution?
Then I'd be impressed, frankly. I've got the original Quest, and features you'd expect to be broken or missing (eg. hand tracking, multitasking, game streaming, web browsing, sideloading, et. al) all work fine.
It's honestly quite sad that the core line of rhetoric here is a laconic "what if" statement around theoretical apps. The Quest exists and has sold tens of millions of units; the Vision Pro has yet to prove itself. Unless you have a specific example, this can only be interpreted as wishcasting.
The quest sold millions at the beginning of a pandemic when people were trapped at home and needed an escape.
How many people still use it? How many regret the purchase, how many would have bought it without the pandemic?
I see that as Meta’s big opportunity to grab success in VR. And it didn’t happen.
They’re trying to market this like the next thing everyone needs and after multiple tries I just don’t see it. I don’t even see how they get there, this is the same strategy as the Quest, Quest 2, PSVR, PSVR2, etc. Games are great but that pitch just isn’t working at really moving the needle. But that’s all they have.
Games moved 20+ million units. That's 'the needle', unless your goal is to depose the iPhone. And clearly Meta is content to leave it alone, since the Quest even has an iOS companion app. They're complimentary products, not cannibalistic.
On the other hand, I can guarantee that most people who already own an iPhone will regret buying a Vision Pro. It's too expensive and too redundant to matter as a piece of hardware. It's not a market-redefining release like the Quest was, nor is it a proprietary solution to unfixable problems. It's an expensive thing, and for most people the Quest value proposition will align long before the Vision Pro value proposition does. The Hololens already tried this avenue too; merely offering a premium version of mixed reality doesn't work (even when the military is your customer).
It'll be years before the dust settles, but the Quest has gotten undeniably far on it's own. You can rationalize that success however you want, but you'll consistently be confused if you hold it to unproven standards like "spatial computing". For me, the Quest is the first Facebook product I've used where I can understand the vision at a consumer level and from a top-down level.
I agree much of this fall under "working for free" but it doesn't have to. I for instance, work as a web developer and really want to get into making games, which is a huge undertaking in itself. It requires deep, productive time of learning and experimentation, and I often find myself drained after work to tackle such activities.
However, I do feel like working through projects like this and coming out the other side with something tangible is a high like no other, and I despite how hard it might be, it's really invigorating and gratifying.
You're treating tech as a hobby and engaging with it accordingly.
This piece literally started with:
> My software developer colleagues often ask me where I do get all the time for reading all the tech books or articles, watching conference talks and listening to podcasts.
Immediately we, the reader, know this isn't about having fun in your spare time or learning and building purely for pleasure.
It's all about achieving, about being that person that other people look to and think "wow, where do they find the time to be so productive??"
If it were as you say, I'd have no issues with the piece at all.
Wether you consider learning a hobby, a chore, or part of the job description, is entirely up to you, regardless of how close to the topic of paid work it is.
The things I may want to learn or do in service of a hobby or personal interest are very different from those topics relevant to my professional life, and the motivations and the value I get from it are entirely different as well.
And this article is clearly written with a professional context in mind.
Unless you think that when he mentioned how his "software developer colleagues often ask me where I do get all the time for reading all the tech books or articles, watching conference talks and listening to podcasts," they were marveling at his woodworking hobby?
So the things you may want to learn are not job related. But maybe the things he wants to learn are.
I've certainly gone through periods where that happened, and others where it didn't.
I don't think it's correct to judge anyone for not wanting to do job related stuff out of the job, but neither is it correct to judge someone who's so interested in their work area that they spend their spare time learning more about it.
