Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 442 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#361

Post by Podgajski »

Ynottingten wrote: post #323
Podgajski wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people have to constantly degrade the legitimate science going on between the question of man-made electromagnetic radiation and human health? One of the biggest differences between light and electromagnetic waves created by humans is that they are polarized. Light waves are not polarized they are scattered. Light waves are also not pulsed. Cancer? Maybe. What about cataracts? What about tinnitus? What about m…

Sun light is polarized. I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera. And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that. All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk thro…

Why is it weird that I connect ion channels? They’ve been shown to be affected by EMFs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/

Here, we systematically clarify how neuronal ion channels are particularly affected and differentially modulated by EMFs at multiple levels, such as gating dynamics, ion conductance, concentration in the membrane, and gene and protein expression. Ion channels represent a major transducer for EMF-related effects on the CNS.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#362

Post by [deleted] »

Ynottingten wrote: post #323
Podgajski wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people have to constantly degrade the legitimate science going on between the question of man-made electromagnetic radiation and human health? One of the biggest differences between light and electromagnetic waves created by humans is that they are polarized. Light waves are not polarized they are scattered. Light waves are also not pulsed. Cancer? Maybe. What about cataracts? What about tinnitus? What about m…

Sun light is polarized. I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera. And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that. All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk thro…

[deleted]

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#363

Post by Podgajski »

Hehohei wrote: post #351
Podgajski wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve done it, which is why I’m so certain it affects me. I’ve had people help me do it.

Can you elaborate how your experiment was setup? After all, while you do post studies which clarify details of your theory, you do not counter the 48 studies linked in the wikipedia article.

Let’s just look at one of the studies. What was the conclusion?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00139...

“If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet. The available observational studies do not allow differentiating between biophysical from EMF and nocebo effects.”

Even the Wikipedia article does not say it does not exist!

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#365

Post by nojvek »

A test I would like someone who gets Apple Vision Pro to do is if they can catch a ball (repeat a few times) while wearing it.

Brain already anticipates the 10-20ms lag from light hitting retina to visual cortex processing, but if the glasses introduce more 10s of ms of lag, it's going to give headaches to most people.

Human brains have been wired to throw up if they notice the senses are woozy. (Survival instinct incase human has ingested some poison).

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#366

Post by dawsfahadasdsad »

nojvek wrote: post #365

A test I would like someone who gets Apple Vision Pro to do is if they can catch a ball (repeat a few times) while wearing it. Brain already anticipates the 10-20ms lag from light hitting retina to visual cortex processing, but if the glasses introduce more 10s of ms of lag, it's going to give headaches to most people. Human brains have been wired to throw up if they notice the senses are woozy. (Survival instinct in…

or juggle a soccer ball

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#367

Post by Eisenstein »

Podgajski wrote: post #298
93po wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation what? you realize all living beings have been exposed to huge amounts of EM radiation since the inception of life in the universe, right? The fact that it's now human made doesn't give it magical properties that cause it to be more damaging. your body itself, right now, emits EM radiation. The piece of fruit next to you emits it. there is zero science showing…

This comment is totally ignorant on the science behind electromagnetic fields that are used for telecommunications. If light or like anthropomorphic EMF, it would be a laser. If telecommunication radio frequency waves were not polarized they could not transmit any information.

I'm not sure I understand the metaphor. What is wrong with lasers? If they are pointed at your eye they could be harmful, but we don't have an 'eye' for the waves that are pointed at us, and a laser powerful enough to do damage to us for other reasons like heat would show likewise the same damage in non viewable wavelengths.

No one is contending that EMF waves can't harm people, since it is know that they can if they are of specific type and power. People are asking how it is possible the ones that exist that are of low power used for communication could harm some incredibly small number of people and not everyone, since it is a physical effect. If you flipped it and someone said they were immune to bullets, would you believe them?

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#369

Post by MikusR »

ramesh31 wrote: post #247
julianh65 wrote: post #241

I wonder how easy / hard and fast it will be to port over quest applications to the Vision Pro. Also wonder how hackable it will be. I'm guessing if it's anything like the iPhone / iPad it won't really be.

>Also wonder how hackable it will be. I'm guessing if it's anything like the iPhone / iPad it won't really be. Fortunately visonOS is a macOS fork, not iOS. The idea for Vision Pro is to be a fully fledged computer replacement, not a secondary mobile device like iPad/iPhone. Should be about as hackable as your Macbook.

It's more locked down than iPhone.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#370

Post by Hehohei »

Podgajski wrote: post #359
Hehohei wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate how your experiment was setup? After all, while you do post studies which clarify details of your theory, you do not counter the 48 studies linked in the wikipedia article.

The studies don’t only include people who are genetically susceptible to EMFs. so if only one and 10 people have the sensitivity, the probability they will be in the studies are reduced. Then you have the problem in the studies of people claiming they have the sensitivity when it is an anxiety or psychological issue. These are widely known issues with the studies that say there’s no effect. As for myself, the last fi…

"If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." -> You should talk to them then.

A good blind study would be a EMF isolated room (shielded mesh, etc), a assistant you don't see (no visual or accustic cue at all) and a procedure you can repeat.

You go out, the assitant sets up the experiment (which is recorded, somehow EMF free), either activates an active EMF (perhaps constant file transfer, radio antenna etc.), the person leaves the room (the source is hidden), you enter, you wait x minutes (probably more than one), you either say yes or no and leave.

If you are clearly above random and you can show this result, you would be a good candidate for proper research.

Your assumption that you proof your EMF sensibility by recording the messurement after is way to unprecise. You might hold your EMF device wrong, ignore values, might have some visual or accustic cues etc.

What device do you use to messure EMF? What range? 5G has a broad spectrum, your sector antennas might send while you messure because someone is doing something close by etc.

Post reply on HN