I'm entirely unfamiliar with the vr rendering space, so all I have to go on is what (I think) your comment implies.
Is the current state of VR rendering really just rendering and transporting two videostreams independent of eachother? Surely there has to be at least some academic prior-art on the subject, no?
I think it depends on whether or not you have good 6ghz connectivity. The headset comes with a 6ghz usb dongle pluggable to your rendering PC for locales without a 6ghz router or good 6ghz penetration, but due to 6ghz lack of wall-penetrating capability, that's probably going to be more/less line-of-sight. The LTT video [0] does explicitly mention the ability to use either mode of connection though- over your existing wifi network, or via their 6ghz dongle. It's somewhat unclear if the headset would function over a non 6ghz connection (regardless of quality- supposedly 2.4/5ghz VR-over-wifi is pretty rough due to channel congestion and maybe bandwidth limits)
The headset is also capable of being its own renderer, ie, it can do 'mobile' vr games (android apks like on the quest, eg). That functionality wouldn't need a connection to your PC at all.
The biggest variation is above 6 GHz: most of the world allows 5.9-6.4 but reserves 6.5-7 GHz for cellular or haven't decided yet if it'll be for wifi or cellular. There's a nice map on https://6ghz.info/
Per the LTT video [0], the new Steam Frame controllers will have a (separately purchasable) accessory pack which includes a knuckles-like strap. Supposedly the controllers have enough capacitive-sensing ("on every input surface, and on the grips") for knuckles-like five finger tracking.
Linus says "just like" the valve knuckles a couple times, but who knows how they'll feel comparatively. I've personally never used the knuckles, but they seem like they'd have a different enough feel from these to maybe make a difference.
These new controllers look just like the Quest 3 controllers. Ergonomically I really like them, and they have capacitive touch for most surfaces as well.
Are you saying that windows users are supposed get the steam hardware once a month?
I’ve had steam installed on (and more/less used daily on) probably 4-5 different windows installs since roughly 2016, and I’ve never seen it more than once a year.
It doesn't take being outside of the west for this to be relevant. Two places I currently frequent, A) the software development offices of a fortune 500 company, and B) the entire office & general-spaces (classrooms, computer labs, etc) of a sizeable university, have 1080p monitors for >80% of their entire monitor deployment.
The zed blog has an early post[0] talking some about their decision. Mainly just decrying their experience of impossible-to-meet timing deadlines for something as basic as 60fps on electron.
It doesnt really do a tech breakdown of why it’d be impossible CPU side, but mentions a couple of things about their design process for it.
What a neat thing to see crop up on hackernews. I did a mini report on guédelon in one of my French courses in Uni. The name immediately threw me back to memories of trying to describe some of the ‘technical’ aspects of the project in my shoddy early French, haha.
Not sure of the rest of the world, but at least in the US, patenting “software” is a pretty murky subject legally (at least it feels that way when trying to do some basic research on it) Something that seems common among sources discussing it is that “Software Related Inventions” (eg, a computer that does XYZ) can be patentable, but software/code itself is not literally patentable. Seemingly, because we’re talking about libraries that would be pure software, not a product for sale based on it, you wouldn’t be able patent libraries like you’re talking about.
I’d provide links to some discourse of this, but honestly I think it’s better to search “can you patent software in the US” and do a brief read of various sources, because the terminology between them can seem somewhat counterfactual to eachother.
A slippery slope is fallacious when the argument is made with little evidence or reasoning to connect the current state/action to the supposed bottom of the slope.
Whether or not you agree with the reasoning is one thing, but there’s been a great deal of argument and discourse talking about the ways we are approaching worse and worse things, and the ways we have purportedly already progressed down the metaphorical slope.
Acknowledging fallacy is one thing, but categorically dismissing all arguments that discuss the (observed and/or potential) repercussions that can arise from current trends and actions on account “slippery slope is a fallacy”, with absolutely zero critical thinking applied to argue against the reasoning and/or alleged evidence of the slope is, well, unreasonable, I feel.
You can argue that the original comment just said “it’s a slippery slope!”, and so that specific conversation is not very valuable, but there’s a lot of surrounding discourse that makes “haha you’re wrong/your topic is invalid because you only said slippery slope!” Is obtuse at best.
And if I didn’t clarify enough, it’s not as if “slippery slopes” don’t and/or physically can’t exist. It’s just that frequently people claim there is one with no argument to support it, just that “it is” a slippery slope, and that it is scary/true just because of the way that it is. That’s fallacy.
The worst part is that I don't disagree that the US and UK are moving toward fascism - or at least some form of ethno-state where a WASPish core retains rights and everyone else has to fend for themselves.
What I am asking for, and pointing out, is that we can do better. It came from a moment of pedantry and honestly a pet peeve. Take what I said with a grain of salt.
yeah, it might be better to talk about a frog in a steadily warming pot rather than losing traction on a slope, but now I'm worried about your username lol
On some thread we were talking about how early diagnosis is a life saver and companies like Prenuvo are doing something nice.
He was 100% opposed, tried to be smaht by arguing something like more screening = more false positives and he came to the dumbest conclusion that no one should do tests until they have symptoms or something, lmao.
I'm stopping before clicking onto the 2nd Google search page.
So, like, two things here.
First: all that happened here is: I read a lot of stuff about this, and "don't get a full body scan" is a super common message actual experts deliver. I remembered, and repeated it on a thread.
Second: how weird is it that you somehow remembered some otherwise-long-forgotten slapfight thread and brought it up unbidden like this? You should charge me rent if I'm going to live in your brain like this.
Is the current state of VR rendering really just rendering and transporting two videostreams independent of eachother? Surely there has to be at least some academic prior-art on the subject, no?