Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | NBJack's commentslogin

You need the right ones.

Xreal One glasses anchor the screen (i.e. it stays in place as you look around), have specific (and adjustable) tech for text clarity, have low chromatic distortion, and do things entirely onboard in the hardware. I've been able to use them for hours comfortably, and have gotten corrective lens inserts to avoid having to use my glasses with them.

They now have a 32:9 mode for ultra wide resolution, which is a real boost to using my work laptop. My aging phone doesn't play as nice as it used to with this mode, but it's a real win having 3 windows arrayed comfortably.

I code and read documents for a living, and I love these things.


If ATT had been applied uniformly, sure. But Apple has exemption from its own rules. So, less trickle down benefit, and more tilting the playing field wildly in their favor. Its new advertising system is doing great!

I don't think the online advertising field is tilted "wildly in Apple's favor". Yes, Apple squeaked out one area of advantage, eliminating some crushing abuse by others in the process.

In a sane world, no one would have the kind of market power that so much hinges upon their competitive actions.


A return to laserdiscs (with CD or BluRay technology and information density) would be wild.

Most high end headphones have a replaceable cable. What have you tried on the expensive end of the spectrum?

Not even high-end nowadays, you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for something with a nonreplaceable cable. Even for iems.

Legitimately listening to this book for the first time after a coworker recommended it. It's rapidly becoming one of my favorite books that balances the truly alien with the familiar just right.

Not so ironically, it came up when we were discussing "software archeology".


It has been a while, but I remember a project of mine trying to port a FTP client to a 'secure compiler' (this was long before Rust and probably a distant ancestor of Checked C). In theory, if I could successfully port it, it would be much more resilient to particular kinds of issues (and maybe even attacks). This was in the era where formal proof coding was trying to take off as well in the industry.

After wading through an impressive number of compiler errors (again, it was technically compatible) and attempts to fix them, I eventually surrendered and acknowledged that at the very least, this was beyond my abilities.

I probably would had gotten much further just rewriting it from scratch.


I'm not sure anyone at the company can say that with a straight face anymore.


The age old tactic of vilification. It's easy to overlook all the nuances on all sides; it's a whole spectrum with plenty of overlap.

My hope in the US is that folks at least take the time to evaluate their options and/or candidates; voting a straight ticket just because someone calls themselves something can lead to undesirable outcomes.


Admirable, but short of a local credit union I used to use (which I am no longer with as they f'd up a rather critical transaction), I can scarcely imagine a business that fits such a model these days. The amount of transparency needed to vet this would be interesting to find though, and its mere presence probably a green flag.


It's much easier to use this to reject than to accept.


Ugh, yes. Normally, you can theoretically pair someone up with a stronger engineer and watch as they learn and grow through their mistakes, while the stronger engineer keeps them on the proverbial straight and narrow with what they produce, through code reviews, documents, etc.

But now, I can't trust any of the models to be that reliable. I can't delegate that responsibility. And since context and prompting is such a fickle thing, I can't really trust any of them to learn from their mistakes, either.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: