So by plane of projection I mean the apparent distance of the virtual image of the UI. If your eyes are focused "through" the display on something a few yards away vs. relatively close, the light from the UI needs to come into your eye (or possibly glasses etc.) as though it is tracing rays in parallel from roughly the same distance away.

Quake style consoles and other HUDs work in video games because in reality the entire scene is coming from the plane of the display, some inches in front of you. If you tried to really focus on a game object 20 yards away, instead of on the screen in front of you, the HUD wouldn't be visible anymore.

In VR optics I believe the virtual screen is something like ~6 feet out in front of you. It is a compromise and still causes eye strain, but is workable perceptually. The issues for transparent AR seem much more complex.

Many of the far-out concepts and ideas that are mocked up for AR seem actually very achievable right now, or yesterday, if the display works like a phone or laptop or VR goggle's does, by re-projecting camera input from a plane a few (possibly virtual) inches or yards away from your eye. The value added though is pretty niche, because people have mobile phones anyway. But if the iPhone hadn't happened, a little display in front of the eye, a whole visor, or a pop-up wrist computer might have been possible to sell. It sounds kind of silly now, but that's what the expectation was in the 80s-90s. The idea of putting a computer on your head still seemed cool then.

The "Open source platform" part of the slideshow shows object detection at various distances. If it can box a car 20 feet away, a building 400 yards away, near objects on my breakfast plate, etc., then the plane of projection has to vary over a huge range as you look around (?). In general many of the demos I see seem to have remarkable things going on, in terms of what parts of the UI and world are in focus simultaneously.

I don't think it is a reductive take. The second instance of the term here instead involves the more traditional concept

program: "a regular plan of action in any undertaking" https://www.dictionary.net/program

Programming (in the sense of software construction) paradigms, philosophies, indeed "languages" etc., are about regularizing plans of action for complex computational undertakings.. usually.

One issue in this area is that the underlying hard logic is limited, and differs from vendor to vendor and product to product. So a nice free IP core might exist for something, say for FFT, but the complete design cannot fit on your chip's LUTs, or it may not have enough buffer blocks or clock multipliers or buses or something to run a given core, or everything "fits" but it has to be run slower to meet timing constraints.

That's not to say it's always like that.

There is probably a need though for various implementations of some algorithms, with different topologies, or for niche environments etc. Just as in embedded development we need various implementations of FFT in floating point, fixed point, using static memory, etc.

And it's not algorithmic really, but peripheral drivers contribute a ton to the community. Being able to e.g. plug a certain e-ink display into a widget without having to write the driver yourself.

opencores.org might be of interest to you (github.com/klyone/opencores-ip).

Any matrix A or B can be interpreted from either point of view on its own. When you take their product AB, each of A's functions (row picture) is evaluated on each of B's points (column picture).

This gives an associative (but not commutative) algebra. If you go around the column picture with an operator like A.B=AB^T, you get

    (A.B).C = (AB^T).C
            = AB^TC^T
    

    A.(B.C) = A.(BC^T)
            = A(BC^T)^T
            = ACB^T

The ownership structure of most news organizations is qualitatively different now than it was in the mid-century heyday of the "independent press". Joseph Pulitzer, for example, was succeeded by generations of owner/editors with a legacy to uphold until the 90s, when JP III died and the family's media interests transferred around and eventually becoming public. By that point, of course, papers had been raising capital from Wall Street for decades already.

So they are funded differently now. The publicly held conglomerates and private equity firms that largely own news organizations today are constitutionally of managing, perhaps even understanding, the "public trust" they own. At best they're concerned with trust in the news.

The concept of public trust is a little subtle. Every news organization, in the US, is a sort of public news organization (in theory).

Marginalize pseudo-events, don't make a story where there isn't any, don't re-report same stories (Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image)

"always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty" (Joseph Pulitzer, Retirement letter)

Lessons from last century, when people trusted the news

What else. I don't know, I learn so much from my radio that it's hard to keep track! And it's so much more engaging than your typically maybe-just-as-sane Netflix documentary with its jarring interview style. The AM hosts actually let their guests talk, uninterrupted, and at length, so you can hear what their points are in the way that they meant to say it. The other night a caller phoned into this expert cryptozoological guy they were interviewing and related how a canid, "too big to be a dog but too small to be a wolf", planted itself on the road in front of his truck before morphing into a woman before him (at night!). And he and this doctor they had as a guest were able to work through the experience on the spot; it wasn't some high production story that cut back and forth through irrelevant fancy stuff for 20 minutes before finally explaining what the guy saw.

I'm only partly being tongue in cheek... This is how "information diet" + learn more about radio new years resolutions have been working out for me. All this crazy stuff has replaced the social media and news/opinion drama I would get wrapped up on before. It's free, actually enjoyable (because of the radio projects, not the broadcasts), mildly to thoroughly amusing (because of the broadcasts), and the insanity is gone as soon as I take the headset off. It should get better soon as well. I'm going to build an FM receiver next, and I hear they still play music on those channels!

... and don't get me wrong that is pretty rad. I have driven to and from St. Louis and the West coast a few times on different routes, and it is insane that anyone ever packed their family and shit from there to there in anything less than a huge truck/family minivan with cruise control air conditioning and radio all set to maximum.

Why is that alright? Were the anti-miscegenation laws wrong, but the newspapers not?

If you're from here or reside here and are committed to the future of the country, you are American. The country in its history has mostly not offered that assurance, and the law and culture behind it was badly racist.

I definitely feel American (on the same level as my white cousins I guess if that's how you want to pin it) and my dad did too. He rebuked my oldest brother once very strongly for suggesting he was first generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laschamp_event

> This loss of the geomagnetic shield is claimed to have contributed to the extinction of Australian megafauna, the extinction of the Neanderthals and the appearance of cave art. However, the lack of corroborating evidence of a causal link between the Laschamp event and population bottlenecks of many megafauna species, and the relatively moderate radio-isotopic changes during the event, have cast significant doubt on the real impact of the Laschamp event on global environmental changes.

I can tell you though that getting hit didn't teach me anything useful at all. Certainly not about reason. It taught me that when reason fails you just rely on your temper. We weren't "corrected" by the punishment in a long term sense, both of my brothers and I just emulated it (to varying degrees).

If you have boys, be careful about modeling physical aggression for them as a norm. You might, say, hit the oldest one as punishment and then weeks later the younger one somehow has a broken arm. Or something happens at school.

We weren't exposed to the world that my dad was growing up in WWII China -- an occupying army, nearby factories blowing up, etc. That doesn't make it a luxury belief that you shouldn't hit your kids. There are consequences to it that go beyond the lessons you want to teach them.

In one of my first jobs I saved a bunch of money for the company just by porting stuff out of Matlab. It wasn't just that the licenses were pricey, it's that they were a pain in the butt, plus the program was slow and very difficult to orchestrate. At least at the time.

It wasn't always easy or possible to replace a client's Matlab analyses with an Octave script, but we at least confined it to just one license on one server, stashed inside a utility closet. While meanwhile all other data analysis work flows had been automated and moved into EC2, where they ran for free on Octave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGQlQFn0euI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759