Yes. You can make a low-resolution monitor (like 800x600px, once upon a time a usable resolution) and/or provide zoom and panning controls
I've tried that combination in an earlier iteration of Lenovo's smart glasses, and it technically works. But the experience you get is not fun or productive. If you need to do it (say to work on confidential documents in public) you can do it, but it's not something you'd do in a normal setup
Yes but that can create major motion sickness issues - motion that does not correspond top the user's actual physical movements create a dissonance that is expressed as motion sickness for a large portion of the population.
This is the main reason many VR games don't let you just walk around and opt for teleportation-based movement systems - your avatar moving while your body doesn't can be quite physically uncomfortable.
There are ways of minimizing this - for example some VR games give you "tunnel vision" by blacking out peripheral vision while the movement is happening. But overall there's a lot of ergo considerations here and no perfect solution. The equivalent for a virtual desktop might be to limit the size of the window while the user is zooming/panning.
For a small taste of what using that might be like turn on screen magnification on your existing computers. It's technically usable but not particularly productive or pleasant to use if you don't /have/ to use it.
Anti theft perhaps? Last March a guy was able to sneak onto a Delta flight by taking a picture of someone else's QR code. Some ticketing apps have temporal QR codes that are resistant to this exploit.
For a period after 9/11, ID was required to be shown at the gate on domestic flights. I don't recall when that stopped, but it's been a while (and apparently long enough ago that apparently some have never had to do it).
I seem to recall IDs occasionally being checked at the gate prior to 9/11 as well. Memory is fuzzy, but they weren't checking boarding passes or ids at security. But back then I would always get my boarding pass at the check-in counter (sometimes exchanging an actual ticket for the boarding pass).
I spent some time looking for old information, best I could come up with was this article [1] from 1996 about requiring photo ID at check-in, which doesn't mention checking at the gate, but does mention why the airlines might be happy to do it (protect revenue by making sure passengers don't fly on other people's tickets... unless they share their name with the other person). This article [2] , also from 1996, is a little bit less precise about if people are denied at check-in or by gate agents.
I think it's all quite hazy, because if you had no checked bags and it was a small airport, but you might just go to the gate and try to get your boarding pass there. That and 24 years have passed. :D
The so called "free market" (not to be confused with laissez faire) assumes perfect "information symmetry" and perfectly rational market participants, which is, effectively, impossible in this particular reality, and concerns itself mostly with marginal eventual state. It is a model.
E.g. the model "use VC money to subsidize cost until all competitors are bankrupt then hike prices to recoup" is not really reflected in this "free market"
> use VC money to subsidize cost until all competitors are bankrupt then hike prices to recoup
Can you give some examples of this happening in real life?
None of the examples I can think of where people criticised the companies for operating unprofitably, such as Amazon retail or Uber, were able to corner their markets.
Harvey Normans, Targets, Argos's, Walmarts, all still exist and compete with Amazon retail. Most towns still operate normal taxis services, Lyft, FreeNow, Bolt, all compete with Uber.
VC funding subsidising pricing, albeit temporarily, is still good for consumers. It doesn't seem to imply higher eventual prices. The opposite seems true, in fact.
> Can you give some examples of this happening in real life?
Austin had a local rideshare app that entered the scene when Uber/Lyft left the area because the city passed a law it failed to propagandize against called RideAustin. Non-profit, worked really well and paid well. When Uber and Lyft came back, they heavily subsidized the cost of doing business in Austin by both arbitrarily lowering prices and heavily juicing rewards for drivers. Conveniently, when RideAustin shut down because most drivers and riders had moved onto either app, these rewards started getting clawed back and prices went way back up.
> Can you give some examples of this happening in real life?
Uber is the canonical example of this, I guess.
> None of the examples I can think of where people criticised the companies for operating unprofitably, such as Amazon retail or Uber, were able to corner their markets.
It's not about people criticising this behavior or not. It's about being factored in the model. The free market model assumes that every participant in the market has the same access to capital, ensuring that every market participant can equally undercut everyone, making this particular strategy irrational, therefore not part of the model.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with working hard and making money. But if you use that money against the rest of us, then we have a problem. Making a huge pile of money to corner a market is one of those scenarios, but there are many.
>they make some todo app, then they post the same video with a new language completely forgetting they've done this already 6 times
I don't see how this is bad. Technology makes iterative, marginal improvements over time. Someone may make a video tomorrow claiming a great new frontend framework, even though they made that exact video about Nextjs, or React before that, or Angular, or JQuery, or PHP, or HTML.
>Something in tech went very wrong at some point, and as soon as money men flood the field we get announcments like this
If it weren't for the massive money being poured into AI, we'd be stuck with GPT-3 and Claude 2. Sure, they release some duds in the tooling department (although I think Skills are good, actually) but it's hardly worthy of this systemic rot diagnosis you've given.
I'm anti-establishment because the establishment doesn't care about anyone but themselves. What are we doing all this work for? Progress would be getting universal healthcare for all in this country. Getting better work life balance. Being able to afford a home. Now it's just all the "haves" fighting bitterly to keep getting more and more until they have everything and nothing for anyone else.
That's one negative quality that Hacker News always had to me, compared to older hacker spaces such as newsgroups and Slashdot: The Petit bourgeois conformism and materialism. People always drunk the Venture Capital pseudo-libertarian cool-aid with too much enthusiasm here.
Being anti-establishment should not be viewed as a sin, unless in extreme cases.
I have noticed that it coincides with the re-election of a certain political candidate (He who must not be named).
The facade of "critical and rational thinker" has all but completely fallen away and this place has revealed itself for the true ideological echo chamber that it is.
Since when are Hackers™ pro establishment? Also what's wrong with being anti-establishment exactly, especially the current one, or really most of the recent neoliberal ones?
If those risks outweigh the benefit of having an impromptu lunch with them, or the sonder comfort of seeing them enjoy a Friday night at home, then don't share your location with that person.
If you feel that way about everyone, then you are a very different person to me (and probably OP).
> If those risks outweigh the benefit of having an impromptu lunch with them, or the sonder comfort of seeing them enjoy a Friday night at home, then don't share your location with that person. If you feel that way about everyone, then you are a very different person to me (and probably OP).
If you feel these are the only two possibilities, we're definitely very different people.
People rarely get to actually negotiate contracts with a SaaS company. Unless you’re a very large customer it’s simply not worth their time. Such imbalances regularly give rise to regulations in other parts of the economy see automotive lemon laws etc.
Most SaaS companies can disable data exports at any time. Even if you’re regularly backing up that data when they disable it you need to instantly move to a new service or there’s going to be a gap.
