I agree. It's a little strange to complain about a lack of progress in webcams the past decade, and then ship similar quality hardware to decade old webcams.
Why does everyone focus on a small form factor for webcams? Look at the size of microphones being sold today. The Blue Yeti is one of the most popular microphones and it's almost 30cm (12") in height. You might say, if you don't mind a large form factor, then go buy a DSLR or mirrorless camera. The problem there is they're not designed to be webcams. I watched one of the Lumina videos, and they were complaining the $2,000 Sony camera took forever to setup and configure for their demo. That's a problem. Someone solve it. Give me a large high quality camera that is designed to be a webcam first. I have lots of room on my desk, it doesn't need to fit in my pocket.
> I watched one of the Lumina videos, and they were complaining the $2,000 Sony camera took forever to setup and configure for their demo
Is that even a real problem? I started using my fuji mirrorless camera as a webcam during the pandemic and it was almost trivial to setup. All I needed to do was download some official software, plug the camera in and switch it on for it to start working as a webcam.
Same here: Used my Sony A7III with USB and their software as an excellent webcam and since I bought the new Sony A7IV, all my client always ask in video calls, what Webcam that is. At my new employer I had several coworkers asking me how the heck I did the insane background blur. (They didn't know it was a mirrorless)
If you have an old DSLR or a modern camera, you can use a 20USD Chinese HDMI Capture stick and get the best webcam on the planet.
Old DSLR - I think there’s an issue with latency that you’ll find on many older DSLRs - converting out to HDMI in real-time - that makes them impractical for use as webcams. Make sure you record yourself in a test conference first and verify.
I dunno what you count as old but my 8 year old Sony A6000 has basically no latency at all. You just have to look up some reviews beforehand and make sure that the camera you're looking at supports a clean HDMI output, combined with a decent capture card you can get rather great image quality for a reasonable price.
My Sony A6000 with a 35mm f3.5 lens was 350 euros second hand. Elgato capture card was 99 euros, a mini-hdmi to hdmi cable 8 euros and a dummy battery wall charger was 25 euros. All in all I get a 60 fps 1080p crispy image with great bokeh for under 500 euros.
There's always the Opal C1 that comes at around 300 dollars but imo the image is pretty terrible in comparison.
DSLRs can be pretty old - I have a Canon EOS on on the shelf that outputs a clean 1080 picture, looks great, and is over 15 years old. Looks great, but the latency in the video signal sucks. Probably same Elgato capture card you have.
You'd think that any DSLR from, let's say, last ten years would be just fine, but it all just comes down to the internals of the cam in question. I'm just saying it's wise to check the experience on the other end before putting an old DSLR into production. Out of sync audio is more distracting than lower quality video.
Speaking of cheap cameras - don't count out older camcorders either. An older (but quality) camcorder will get you drastically better image quality and control capabilities than a webcam too, same process as hooking up an older DSLR (capture card, etc). Same challenges to be aware of with latency, and maybe moreso. I've seen a camcorder produced in last two years that had too much latency in HDMI signal to be worth the trouble - it was lower end, but just illustrates the point that component quality varies and has an impact on your use case.
Except it cannot handle exposure changes at all, whether from a cloud or just moving around in the frame. So you AE lock and babysit. It’s just easier to link up your phone.
I upgraded a desktop machine the last time I visited my family. It was a Windows 7 computer that was at least 10 years old with 4GB of ram. They wanted to use it online for basic web browsing, so I thought I'd install Windows 10 for security reasons and drop in a modern SSD to upgrade the old 7200rpm drive to make it more snappy.
Well, it felt slower after the "upgrade". Clicking the start menu and opening something like the Downloads or Documents folder was basically instant before. Now, with Windows 10 and the new SSD there was a noticeable delay when opening and browsing folders.
It really made me wonder how it would be running something like Windows 98 and websites of the past on modern hardware.
I wonder if you'd have any more luck with that hardware putting Ubuntu Mate on it. For basic web browsing, it probably wouldn't matter much to your family whether it's running Windows or Linux.
Problem with Ubuntu is it doesn’t auto update and it’s very hard to get it to do that. Not sure it’s even possible to auto update major releases as well.
Every time I have installed Ubuntu for someone, I have come back years later and it’s still on the same version.
I am not sure about major release upgrades. But if you are on an LTS release, this should cover it for five years. And as much as I dislike snaps, they do auto updates too, so in 22.04 Firefox at least keeps up-to-date too.
Throw in more RAM and Windows 10 will likely feel snappier than Windows 7 did.
It's probable the old Windows 7 install was 32-bit while your fresh install of 10 would have defaulted to 64-bit. That combined with 10's naturally higher memory requirements means the system has less overhead to work with.
recently I've seen new laptops being shipped with 4GB. possibly with a slightly lighter (but not fully debloated) version of 10 (Home? Starter? Edu?)
I'm not sure if this is because Windows memory usage is a lot more efficient now, or if the newer processors' performances can cancel out the RAM capacity bottleneck, or if PC4-25600 + NVMe pagefiles are simply fast enough, or if manufacturers are spreading thinly during the chip shortage. but it's certainly an ongoing trend
Mother I law bought a machine with 4GB of ram, which was fine before windows 10. Now it spends all day doing page/sysfile swap from its mechanical hard drive. Basically unusable.
So here in my pocket is an 8GB stick of DDR3 sodimm for later.
32bit PAE was supported since Windows XP and initially allowed for more than 4GB of RAM to be supported, but driver issues made Microsoft put a soft-cap in 4GB under this mode[0]. But Win7 32 bits with PAE would've surely been able to use all of those 4GB fine.
Try Win-R and type "notepad", at a reasonably fast programmer's pace. It consistently loses "no" for me, sometimes more if it's feeling particularly slow.
This should involve absolutely zero disk reads or anything of the sort, it's a window that runs a command. And it used to work reliably in past years. It feels like keyboard input simply isn't buffered like it used to be. Calculator it even worse as it loses input if you start typing the formula too soon. It used to be very easy for casual calculations now I have to wait for the computer.
In a similar vein I installed Ubuntu on an older laptop that had been running Windows 10. I was shocked at how fast it was compared to Windows 10, it was night and day.
This is part of it - many things are "fast enough" that were you used to have caches that would display nearly instantly, now you don't have those - it reads from disk each time it needs to show the folder, etc.
This is very visible in any app that no longer maintains "local state" but instead is just a web browser to some online state (think: Electron, teams, etc). Disconnect the web or slow it down and it all goes to hell.
That's interesting, I cloned a Win10 installation on a HDD to a sata SSD a year or two back and the speed difference was considerable. Especially something like Atom that took minutes to open before was ready to go in like 10 seconds afterwards.
Somewhere around IIRC Win8 Microsoft must have gotten really lax about minimizing disk access. Windows started being slow as molasses on an HDD, even for stuff like opening the start menu.
This hurts performance a ton on SSDs, too, it's just less noticeable. Something that should happen so fast you can hardly measure how long it takes, takes... just long enough to notice, which may amount to 100x as long as it should take, but 100x a small number is still pretty small.
Yeah the change from a 7200 HDD to an SSD for those 10 year old machines provides a very considerable improvement. It goes from "unusable" to "moderate" performance for general web browsing and business duties.
I'm talking about Windows 10 on 4G C2Q or Phenom/Phenom II machines - they aren't fast but they're very usable with a SSD and GPU in place.
You're comparing 10 to 10, so of course an SSD will only help in that situation.
But if any parts of 10 are sufficiently badly coded compared to 7, that will overcome the drive. And some parts definitely are, especially in the start menu code.
10 years of malware definition updates. 10 years of countless security additions. Every operation needs to be checked for correction, memory safety etc.
I once saw a spider with long legs in a web by my bathroom sink. I flicked a bit of water at him and a drop of water stuck to his body and covered it. He quickly climbed down the web to the counter (only 6 inches or so) and crouched down to briefly touch his body to the dry countertop. That removed the drop of water from his body, and then he climbed back up.
Aside from that, I sometimes like to toss foreign objects in spider webs. For example, I'll toss a piece of a leaf into a web. The spider will quickly come over, work some magic for a few seconds, and then the leaf is suddenly untangled and floats away. It's really interesting to see how quickly they're able to remove unwanted objects from their webs to keep them clean.
How can we be certain we're also not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry? If the universe went back in time exactly one year, is there any reason you wouldn't make all of the same decisions?
> How can we be certain we're also not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry?
Try to look at it from this perspective:
We are made of 2 things: 1. consciousness and 2. a physical body. Only way to operate in this physical world is via a physical body so our bodies are bound to the laws of physics and chemistry.
When someone dies their physical body is still part of this physical world but not their consciousness.
Consciousness is like a visitor to this physical world.. it doesn't belong here so laws are not applicable either.
> If the universe went back in time exactly one year, is there any reason you wouldn't make all of the same decisions?
That's rather a difficult test. Let me give you a simple one: can you predict yourself i.e. your own behaviour? you could at most make high probability guesses but you won't always know what you gonna do unless and until you are faced with that situation
I completely disagree. I think these are taking it a step further than your examples. Dalle2 is not just using the existing Kermit and pasting it in different environments, it's modifying Kermit to fit in that world.
It's clearly just an existing photo of Kermit pasted over an image from the film. There are even two sets of arms. I could Photoshop that in a few minutes.
I think it's impressive. It looks like Kermit is a character in the Star Wars universe. There are a few issues with the eyes and feet, and it's also hard to tell if it's a creature or a person in a frog suit. However, it gets 90% of the way there, and the pose is great for a frog/human hybrid.
The most exciting thing is how this could be used as a starting point for design. I could take the Dalle2 Kermit image above, fix the eyes/feet, add a few distinctive Kermit features, and have a great piece of concept art in an hour, rather than taking a day or two to create something from scratch. Obviously it can't be applied to all workflows, but for those it's suited for, it'll save vast amounts of time and costs. For that reason, it's already something of real value in its current state. The same can't be said about the Star Wars examples you provided.
> “Why” we exist is coincidence and millions of years of happy little evolutionary experiments blindly conducted by nature.
I'm not religious either, but I always find this hard to believe. What are the odds nature happened to provide all the building blocks for us to be here to question our existence? It seems far more likely that (i) nothing would exist, (ii) the universe wouldn't have the right combination of properties and forces to maintain its own existence, or (iii) it would be a boring universe filled with a couple of basic elements capable of producing nothing of interest. Instead, we have complex life and we're here building iPhones and spaceships.
For that reason I can't believe there's a single universe and through coincidence it happened to contain everything needed for life. Even if we go with the multiverse theory and a near infinite number of universes, I still find it difficult to believe. You can argue the universe is filled with a bunch of garbage and we're assigning meaning and value to that garbage because it's us, and we want to feel important. However, I really don't feel like anything (and certainly not something as complex as us) should exist in the first place. I want to say it's too much of a coincidence to happen by chance, but at the same time, I don't have a better answer as to why we're here.
I think you are struggling with something I thought a lot about too. It is difficult for our brains to actually internalize the /immense/ amount of time evolutionary processes have been happening. It is so long and vast and our brains are barely good with comprehending hours and days. It is a mind bogglingly loooong time. Like really, really, really long. A lot can happen in a few billion years :)
I understand evolution and the time frame. I have no trouble with that concept. What I find difficult to believe is that a viable universe started in the first place to give evolution the opportunity to succeed.
Infinitesimally low probability doesn't imply impossibility. If the event is in the probability space then it can certainly happen, no matter how serendipitous we may find it.
What is so remarkable about the iPhone or the spaceship? Why is it worthy of note when compared to any other phenomena in the universe? What brings you to make a distinction between a live human body and an inanimate celestial body?
> What is so remarkable about the iPhone or the spaceship? What brings you to make a distinction between a "live" human body and an "inanimate" celestial body?
I'm not trying to say that humans are more important or meaningful than a rock. I agree with you that nothing inherently has meaning and it's an attribute we create and assign. I'm only saying that we're intelligent beings that are capable of some rather advanced tasks, such as creating a iPhone. In my opinion, it seems far less likely for us to exist than either nothing, or a simpler universe without us.
Yes, it's not impossible, just like I could throw a handful of sand in that air that falls to the ground and happens to write the story of my life. It's so unlikely though that I can't help but wonder if it wasn't just chance that we're here.
I've always been slightly below average weight my entire life (late 30s now), and it's a bit of a struggle to maintain that weight. I typically eat a little extra each day, not because I'm particularly hungry or interested in eating, just because I don't want to fall underweight.
I've counted calories closely before and it's not black magic at work, I just don't eat enough. It feels like I eat a lot (probably because it's mostly food I cook myself and not calorie dense fast food) and I feel full, but the calories don't lie.
I'm guessing it's the reverse for people struggling to lose weight. I feel full and comfortable 200 calories below the daily recommended amount, and they likely feel that same way 200 calories above. I easily fall underweight if I stop paying attention to my diet, and they likely become overweight when they do the same and listen to their body.
Why do you assume all of these things only exist to impress others? There's a lot to appreciate in the design and craftsmanship of a well made product, its impact on culture, or its significance in history. Or maybe the object simply puts a smile on your face when you see it or touch it. That new phone could make someones work day more efficient. That diamond necklace could be a gift from their loved one and a reminder of the times they shared together when they look in the mirror. It seems a bit shortsighted to suggest that expensive things only exist to impress others.
The satisfaction you get just seems very price-inefficient and lot of that price seems to be traceable to one-upsmanship. What is the special value of the diamonds in the necklace?
For expensive objects, a lot of the price goes into the limited production runs. A number of these very expensive watches ($100,000k+) might be a single unique piece or limited runs of 100. They take a lot of time to develop, the production expenses are high because of the small numbers being produced, and it's reflected in the final price. For higher end mass produced watches, the expense is in the tighter tolerances, materials, and craftsmanship. You can search for macro videos online to see the difference between a typical $500, $5,000, and $50,000 watch. The extra details and care given to the construction of the watches is impressive. Yes, some brands charge a premium for their name. I'm aware of that, however, it doesn't necessarily indicate the buyer is trying to impress others. Someone could buy a Rolex because it's one of the most iconic watches in history and in their mind it's the peak of their watch hobby.
And you see this with nearly every hobby. If you look at the audiophile community, you'll see people with $20,000 speakers in their living room, yet they live a rather modest lifestyle. You can find people spending thousands of dollars on samurai swords to hang on their bedroom wall. These people are not trying to impress the world. They have a hobby and they are able to appreciate these items.
The special value of the diamonds? People have worn diamonds for ages. It's been ingrained in our culture that diamonds are significant as they've been worn by royalty and noble figures over the years and marketed as a symbol of love. They're also the hardest naturally occurring substance on the planet and look quite nice to the eye. Did you ever see a child dress up like a princess? They didn't do it because they wanted to impress others, they did it because it made them feel special. Wearing diamonds can have that same impact. It can make someone feel special, or represent to themselves their own successes and accomplishments in life. I looked at wedding bands the other year. Many of them had diamonds hidden on the inside of the band. If the purpose of diamond jewelry was only to impress others, why would they be hidden on these rings and only known to the wearer?
I'm not going to say expensive objects or diamonds are never used to impress others. I'm only saying that's one of many reasons why someone might make such a purchase. I don't think it's appropriate to see something of value and automatically assume the owner only bought it to impress you. If you talk to them about the purchase, they might be able to talk your ear off about their passion and what that object means to them.
I don't agree here. This social network is a tool for one method of communication. It doesn't need to be a platform for all types of communication. By trying to excel at everything, it would do nothing particularly well.
You choose the right tool for the job. If a friend is in critical care at the hospital with life threatening injuries, do you really think "slow social" is the appropriate service to use? That's just being silly. As the name suggests, this service is designed for the opposite type of communication. It's like complaining that Sharpie markers should make thinner lines because sometimes you need to write complex notes. Or, that Ferrari should modify their cars because sometimes you need to tow a boat.
https://www.waveshare.com/product/displays/e-paper/epaper-1/...
https://www.waveshare.com/product/displays/e-paper/epaper-1/...