* integrated into bazel rather than go-compiler-hacking
* your "normal" code just imports the result - which can be go-to-definition-ed to see the generated code
Hmmm that was an autocorrect I hadn't noticed. Thanks for the correction!
My understanding was that it was on its way for true AR, just with limited display capabilities. e.g., if I only wanted augmented information, monochrome is just fine.
I don't really need to be able to play pong badly to consider it AR.
Augmented reality means displaying virtual 3D content, registered to the real world. So a 2D panel that sticks to a wall, or a 3D object that sits in place on a desk, etc. The display is "just" the way to present that content, getting the registration requires cameras, 6DOF sensors, CV, SLAM, etc.
Monochrome AR is certainly possible, and probably 90% as useful as RGB AR. I'm just saying the Vaunt hardware seems to be display-only, i.e. a HUD, without any capability to do the registration part.
> If Ford starts snooping on our in-car conversations and injecting ads into our Spotify streams, we can just refuse to buy Fords.
If Ford does this, every other car company will find ways to license or come up with competing patents then do the same.
There is every incentive for informal collusion here and regulatory bodies are meant to express public sentiment that things like this are something that we, as a society, do not want.
Why on earth would a startup's code not be reviewable?
If I'm doing a big chunk of work, I still do it in small PRs. That first PR (or a design doc) might outline a strategy for the ones that follow, but still try to have small PRs. Or, worst case, I do a big chunk of work and break it out into small logical chunks for review.
While there is a certain exciting aspect to this in the same vein as any cyberpunk dystopia might have, it also sounds exceedingly wasteful.
The security properties are interesting but largely overshadowed by economic forces. Things become centralized because they're cheaper and easier for users.
If this system existed, it would have to have _such a good user experience_ to overcome its many inefficiencies.
Because the vast majority of new works are not done by one of the few who would be qualified to check it.
You can think of the cryptography community as similar to the math community. If some nobody makes a new proof of a big conjecture, it is considered with skepticism until some big name comes around to verify it. If Terence Tao comes out with a new proof in one of his specialities, people are going to assume it's basically correct or will have only very minor errors that are easily fixed.
reply