Calling them a hologram is like calling a lenticular a gif.
These live displays are usually just some sort of optical illusion.
A real hologram shows you the actual light from the captured event as it’s the entire light field from the event. So your eyes are receiving essentially stored light.
Believe me - this isn't a battle worth fighting. At the end of the day, everything is an illusion. Vision is not reality.
Source: many a long year making digital holograms and trying to explain to people what it is I do.
I wonder if this strategy was pre or post Bezos purchase. Either way, I avoid WP at all costs. (I know clicking the ‘web’ link here can bypass - I’m just venting and I apologize for that).
Thanks for the outline link.
The main performer is not alive. What’s the draw? Is it like going to a wax museum but for music?
It seems as exciting as chewing on beeswax.
Also, "live concerts" with lip-synced performances seem to be relatively common, for whatever reasons. The audio is pre-recorded in this case, as well as with a solo, dead "live performer". Doesn't seem like a huge difference to me.
I don't use an adblocker. I am well aware that my web browsing experience would be much more pleasant if I did, but I want to support the sites I visit.
The Washington Post won't let me read their article because it says I need to disable my ad blocker, which I don't have. The link with instructions on how to disable my nonexistant ad blocker includes this line:
> Firefox's native ad blocker
> Select the "i" or shields icon to the left of the URL in the URL bar. In the tooltip that opens, click on "Turn off Blocking for This Site" to disable blocking. For more information, please visit Firefox's instructions.
Of course, Firefox doesn't have a native ad blocker. What these instructions are telling me to do is disable Firefox's "tracking protection". That's not the same at all.
Back in the 90's and early 00's the web was an amazing place with high signal and low noise. Now you have shitty articles creeping into our social feeds that we can't even read -- they're effectively advertising on Hacker News, Reddit, etc. at no cost and then asking us to pay. That shouldn't fly.
News websites asking for money should get zero placement on social sites or news feeds.
These websites complain that we're depriving them of money, but the fact is they chose to build websites. They made a land grab during the commercialization of the internet and they're dissatisfied with the results.
Meanwhile we have auto-playing video ads because Google ad reps say it drives higher engagement, and the tech to support it is being built into Chrome because it earns Google more money.