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

Soli

atap.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 325 posts

Re: Soli

#311

Post by flanbiscuit »

TOMDM wrote: post #290
oldmanhorton wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that snapping is definitely an incidental gesture for some people, and it's also highly inaccessible (while many gesture controls aren't perfectly accessible, audibly snapping is difficult for many more people than those who waving is difficult for)

Thinking over this I have to agree. Not to mention, half the utility of the gestures is the ability to interact with messy/wet hands. Snapping my fingers near my phone in that situation isn't attractive. Maybe teaching a gesture to your phone is the most accessable option, respects culture and disability the best. It's a shame though, I did like the intentionality that the sound of snapping fingers afforded.

Not to mention how annoying it is to start hearing people snapping their fingers everywhere, like in the office or on any mass transit.

Re: Soli

#312

Post by machello13 »

Judgmentality wrote: post #274
cushychicken wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of that technology was improved and miniaturized, and incorporated into the Apple Face ID bar at the top of the iPhone X.

Personally I feel FaceID is a step backwards from fingerprint readers. It doesn't work as often for me (facial hair, hat, lighting, hoodie, and sometimes it's just finnicky) and there are privacy concerns. The fingerprint reader isn't perfect, but for me it was better. I can touch it while pulling the phone out of my pocket and it's unlocked when I open it. I'm frustrated with Google's choice to copy Apple and remove…

What privacy concerns are there?

Re: Soli

#313

Post by ozymandias12 »

mlyle wrote: post #242
GistNoesis wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that Radar follows an inverse 4th power with distance (inverse 2th power for the light to go to the reflected object then 2th power for the reflected wave to go back to your antenna). For 3$ https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/32786483344.html a 6Ghz radar that goes 12meters using 30mA, so my range claims are not that silly. When there is no obstacle 6Ghz or 60Ghz doesn't matter.

> When there is no obstacle 6Ghz or 60Ghz doesn't matter. Power amplifier efficiency for 6GHz and 60GHz is not the same-- not even close. > For 3$ https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/32786483344.html a 6Ghz radar that goes 12meters using 30mA, so my range claims are not that silly. This is a deflection and ridiculous. We're talking about spotting e.g. gestures. It falls apart with distance because of both angular resoluti…

Not an mmwave radar guy as well, but afaik, this little chip is quite capable of counting how many people are IN a room, if they're standing or laying down, etc, but of course, without the granular control of its factory NUI [natural user interface] proximity calibration.

And here I'm not even considering if this solid state radar chip cross reference its data with Wifi radio signals or the dot projector, boosting its ML recognition capabilities to be able to "blob" (and possibly identify) moving things as far as 50m.

Re: Soli

#314

Post by prirun »

I wish Google would figure out how to do speech-to-text without mistakes before they start dabbling in radar.

Re: Soli

#315

Post by Judgmentality »

machello13 wrote: post #312
Judgmentality wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I feel FaceID is a step backwards from fingerprint readers. It doesn't work as often for me (facial hair, hat, lighting, hoodie, and sometimes it's just finnicky) and there are privacy concerns. The fingerprint reader isn't perfect, but for me it was better. I can touch it while pulling the phone out of my pocket and it's unlocked when I open it. I'm frustrated with Google's choice to copy Apple and remove…

What privacy concerns are there?

I guess it depends on whether or not you consider a 3D scan of your face personal data. As face-tracking becomes more prevalent, I'd say this is the worst thing you could voluntarily give away. Your face can be scanned just walking through a crowd in public, a fingerprint is only usable when you physically touch something (and the digital version is always prompted so you can't be identified in a crowd unexpectedly like you can with a face).

Re: Soli

#316

Post by arghwhat »

GistNoesis wrote: post #241
arghwhat wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 60Ghz millimiter-wave radar > so it can go through walls 60 GHz RF doesn't really pass through anything , which is the entire reason that the frequency is used for radar. A radar needs powerful reflections to detect things. Penetration impedes its operation, and would be akin to a camera that is out of focus. I'm also unsure if the resolution of this chip is noteworthy.

I am not familiar with 60Ghz. I agree that it has more problem going through obstacles. But usually when going higher frequency we can compensate by using more bandwidth. (Terahertz antennas use this to do crazy stuff.) The main reason it was chosen was to make it smaller to have everything integrated on a chip, and have an antenna array. Walls are typically static, which means they won't appear in the hardware ampli…

> Walls are typically static, which means they won't appear in the hardware amplified Doppler-shift signal (below 100Hz) which detect moving objects.

It will kill your SnR entirely, though. There will realistically be nothing to amplify.

Re: Soli

#317

Post by machello13 »

Judgmentality wrote: post #315
machello13 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What privacy concerns are there?

I guess it depends on whether or not you consider a 3D scan of your face personal data. As face-tracking becomes more prevalent, I'd say this is the worst thing you could voluntarily give away. Your face can be scanned just walking through a crowd in public, a fingerprint is only usable when you physically touch something (and the digital version is always prompted so you can't be identified in a crowd unexpectedly l…

I would agree facial recognition in a general sense has privacy implications — but in the case of Face ID I think the implementation is sufficiently secure.

Re: Soli

#318

Post by Judgmentality »

machello13 wrote: post #317
Judgmentality wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on whether or not you consider a 3D scan of your face personal data. As face-tracking becomes more prevalent, I'd say this is the worst thing you could voluntarily give away. Your face can be scanned just walking through a crowd in public, a fingerprint is only usable when you physically touch something (and the digital version is always prompted so you can't be identified in a crowd unexpectedly l…

I would agree facial recognition in a general sense has privacy implications — but in the case of Face ID I think the implementation is sufficiently secure.

I agree Apple is one of the few companies that takes security seriously. That said, it only takes one hack/leak to compromise your biometric data forever. You can't change it as easily as a password. And you're voluntarily giving it up...for what? A worse unlocking experience? If it weren't for the novelty factor I am confident most people would not use it - probably why the hardware is removing it as an option. Also it's no secret those companies want the extra data for training better models and this is a "free" way to get really high quality data.

As far as things to bemoan in tech this is pretty low on the totem pole. I'm just annoyed because I wanted to buy a new phone and can't find one that has what I want at any price.

EDIT: I saw this article seconds after finishing this comment, which seems ironic.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50080586

Re: Soli

#319

Post by machello13 »

Judgmentality wrote: post #318
machello13 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree facial recognition in a general sense has privacy implications — but in the case of Face ID I think the implementation is sufficiently secure.

I agree Apple is one of the few companies that takes security seriously. That said, it only takes one hack/leak to compromise your biometric data forever. You can't change it as easily as a password. And you're voluntarily giving it up...for what? A worse unlocking experience? If it weren't for the novelty factor I am confident most people would not use it - probably why the hardware is removing it as an option. Also…

I think you should read up a bit more on the technical implementation of Face ID. The data never leaves the phone and, even if an attacker had physical access to the phone, they could not get the information. Apple is getting no training data from it.

> If it weren't for the novelty factor I am confident most people would not use it

I think this is really incorrect. You really think everyone is using Touch ID and Face ID only because of the novelty factor, and not because it's significantly more convenient (and, at least in many cases, more secure)? That if it wasn't "fun", everyone would be completely okay going back to entering 6-digit passcodes?

Re: Soli

#320

Post by Judgmentality »

machello13 wrote: post #319
Judgmentality wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree Apple is one of the few companies that takes security seriously. That said, it only takes one hack/leak to compromise your biometric data forever. You can't change it as easily as a password. And you're voluntarily giving it up...for what? A worse unlocking experience? If it weren't for the novelty factor I am confident most people would not use it - probably why the hardware is removing it as an option. Also…

I think you should read up a bit more on the technical implementation of Face ID. The data never leaves the phone and, even if an attacker had physical access to the phone, they could not get the information. Apple is getting no training data from it. > If it weren't for the novelty factor I am confident most people would not use it I think this is really incorrect. You really think everyone is using Touch ID and Fac…

> You really think everyone is using Touch ID and Face ID only because of the novelty factor, and not because it's significantly more convenient (and, at least in many cases, more secure)? That if it wasn't "fun", everyone would be completely okay going back to entering 6-digit passcodes?

I meant compared to using a fingerprint reader, but even then yes. I returned an iPhone because I can't unlock my phone in the dark enough that I just got sick of it. My partner complains of the same thing, and vows to buy a cheaper phone next time because of it.

> I think you should read up a bit more on the technical implementation of Face ID. The data never leaves the phone and, even if an attacker had physical access to the phone, they could not get the information. Apple is getting no training data from it.

Thank you for this, it's useful. It still doesn't assuage me that it's impenetrable though, just that it would be incredibly difficult to obtain.

Post reply on HN