Jump to content

The March of Technology


deanb
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Some of the stuff they talk about it could do kind of require a camera, which this doesn't have (though Google Glass does).

 

Price is the unmentioned issue, and many people don't like wearing glasses if they don't "need to" (as we saw with 3-D in cinema). Also smartwatches haven't hugely taken off and I'd say over glasses they're a little bit better in that they can be more interactive and you can wear watches in more situations compared to people wearing glasses that "don't need to".

 

I'll be honest a biggy for me would be if I could have something that'd give me names of people I meet that I know from previous events, but as mentioned that'd need a camera (and some heavy processing, though that's fine to be passed on to a phone). Or doing presentations having the speakers notes right in front of me.

 

I guess we shall see how this develops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, deanb said:

I'll be honest a biggy for me would be if I could have something that'd give me names of people I meet that I know from previous events, but as mentioned that'd need a camera (and some heavy processing, though that's fine to be passed on to a phone).

 

That would be so amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Actually, all these text generation bots scare me with how good they are. Like, obviously that story is dumb and ridiculous, but it's coherent enough that you can actually follow it. Lines make sense in context with previous lines, there's back and forth, ideas carry throughout the scene (like being inside the whale), and it brings in outside knowledge (like that blood shouldn't be outside your body and that it would bother someone if it was). That means that bot is already better at creating cohesive stories than any living thing besides humans. Hell, that could easily have been written by a human child. Given how fast technology develops that indicates to me that we're coming up on machines that are smarter than us way faster than it seems like.

 

*This is all assuming of course that these things are real, and not written by humans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehhhh...

I'd go with the "not real" thing, at least not something put together by that poster since he had a bot 'watch' Saw films, and it outputted a script that was formatted in the same way a script would be. So at best it was fed a bunch of Saw scripts.

 

I think someone linked the bot-written Harry Potter before but if not:
http://botnik.org/content/harry-potter.html

 

There are still a bunch of things written by bots. I believe quite a lot of sport reports are bot written given as long as you have the relevant stats a bot can competently put together much of the rest. There's services for bot written reports as well. This is what Associated Press use:
https://automatedinsights.com/case-studies/associated-press

 

Here's Washington Post bot written sport report:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/allmetsports/2017-fall/games/football/87055/?utm_term=.c0d1fda74c6a

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

To continue with the literal march of technology...

There's some visualization of the data it uses it get around in this video. For this run, there was a manual run to gather route data beforehand. I guess the processing speed is just not there yet to make on-the-fly route decisions?

And there is this.

I think in five years, I would not be surprised if it start hiking up mountain trails here in California during the summer.

Edited by Mal
  • Like 2
  • Rock On 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I guess this is the nearest thing we have to a science thread, I wonder if it's worth creating one?

 

tumblr_pbrf0oUjHE1qckzoqo1_400.gif

 

When I was a child, my father would take me trout fishing, and I spent hours marveling from the riverbank at the trouts’ ability to, seemingly effortlessly, hold their position in the fast-moving water. As it turns out, those trout really were swimming effortlessly, in a manner demonstrated above. The fish you see here swimming behind the obstacle is dead. There’s nothing powering it, except the energy its flexible body can extract from the flow around it. 

The obstacle sheds a wake of alternating vortices into the flow, and when the fish is properly positioned in that wake, the vortices themselves flex the fish’s body such that its head and its tail point in different directions. Under just the right conditions, there’s actually a resonance between the vortices and the fish’s body that generates enough thrust to overcome the fish’s drag. This means the fish can actually swim upstream without expending any energy of its own! The researchers came across this entirely by accident, and one of the questions that remains is how the trout is able to sense its surroundings well enough to intentionally take advantage of the effect. (Image and research credit: D. Beal et al.; via PhysicsBuzz; submitted by Kam-Yung Soh)

 

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/07/watch-how-does-dead-fish-swim-upstream.html

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Rock On 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...