It certainly seemed to me, from the all the talk, it was meant to do absolutely everything. When I realised it couldn't make a System-on-Chip I figured someone was bullshitting.
I took one look at the consumable material and promptly forgot about the idea.
If I was making a competitive comparison I really would be asking for five years per charge. A cellphone shorter than weekly is just a gimmick too.
In reality, three months would likely work fine but asking for the minimum isn't likely to get you there is it?
I'd be prepared to accept a six monthly charging cycle (still ten times more often than regular watches) but every frig'ing day is ridiculous.
This is not a bugginess issue.
Point is the layers create bloat. Any hidden dynamic memory allocations that occur, by whatever system call, is just one more part of the bloat.
Hidden malloc()'s is a good example of the bloat problem I'm referring to.
When the altitude stops changing for a whole second the filter is going to have to be a long one! And that ain't desirable for responsive control.
The real question is how could the sensory processor have overloaded in the first place? My money is on simple [b]code bloat[/b]. Ie: They used a bunch of generic libraries that use further libraries that use further libraries that use further libraries that use further libraries that use further libraries
Hey, lets binge on positive feedback loops!
just like my post
Surely a mining machine can crush things with it's mining gear? Makes you wonder how a bird can knock over such heavy machinery? Oh, wait, it's only a surveying drone!
A quick search nets me http://journals.plos.org/ploso... a 2013 submission. Quote: "The most effective species, Asparagopsis, offers the most promising alternative for mitigation of enteric CH4 emissions."
All online multiplayer games are solitary affairs. Even large scale team games like Eve are still solitary. They may be social, but they're a solitary type of social. The group activities all happen offline.
On the other hand, LAN gaming was a group activity in it's time, but that's long dead now. Developers didn't like to provide such freedoms if they didn't have to.
The problem with virtual rooms is they aren't a single view point. You're not actually sharing the same experience. And making them all identical images removes the VR function! Pointless putting the gear on in the first place.
VR for games is a gimmicky hassle that'll wear off just like 3D movies repeatedly have.
VR is, like gaming, solitary in nature. The only reason I use Google Maps is to discuss details about locations with others in the room with me. Or maybe prep a printout for later reference. VR would be useless for both those.
I do want to have a reason for VR but I can't see one. It's a burden to wear and adjust. Waving hands in the air is awkward at best, and bound to be tiring. Even for gaming it'll be too tiring for anything more than a short stint at a time. In other words, gimmicky. I'll probably buy a set once it's ready on Linux though.
I once saw a molecule mapping tool using a 3D display, with glasses, very effectively. It provided equal viewing of the one display for all in the room. This is a rare speciality application with the bare minimum for the needed enhancement.
Touch-screens are limiting enough but VR will be another round of the infamous 3D movie theatres, me thinks. Actually even VR has come and gone in the past as well.
AR has to compete with the smartphone and even wearing a plain set of sunglasses can get people agitated so a set of recording goggles ain't going to be very socially accepted either.
Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.