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

321–325 of 325 posts

Re: Soli

#321

Post by landa »

Judgmentality wrote: post #320
machello13 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dar…

Face ID works way better for me. I couldn't get the fingerprint reader to recognize my stupid sweaty fingers sometimes, but Face ID always works for me.

You can unlock your phone in the dark. It doesn't rely on visible light, as it shines its own infrared light on you. You were probably holding your phone too close to your face.

Re: Soli

#322

Post by GistNoesis »

mlyle wrote: post #298
GistNoesis wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it was easy to spot and precisely track small objects at 10m, That's not the claim I'm making. I agree that this chip won't do the gesture recognition at 10m, but I'm quite convinced that it can pick up human movement signal if they try to do so. >I've been involved in the design of mmwave radars I don't have this level of expertise. But I'll be really surprised if we couldn't reach the same levels of amplificati…

Your second quote seems out of context and doesn't occur in the paper you cite. Your first quote says "sensing range below 10m". Yes, it is possible to make long range 60GHz systems-- largely through antenna gain and lenses. Yes, we could build an entirely different radar to track peoples' gross movement--- and could have 20 years ago, too-- but that has largely nothing to do with the original system or your original…

>10000x power alone

Sorry to dig this up so late, there is a usual misconception when reasoning with power (which you might suffer from) :

What matters is not power, what matter is what we measure. We are measuring electric field in volts whose square is proportional to the power. Going 10x as far, mean measuring a voltage 100x smaller. Even with just the dynamic range if your analog digital converter is reading you 8-bits values (values going to 256) with a 100x voltage reduction you get a smaller blip going from 0 to 2.

Re: Soli

#323

Post by Copenjin »

rtkwe wrote: post #186
Copenjin wrote: post #161

Note at the bottom: > 1) Pixel 4’s Soli implementation does not include all capabilities and interactions described here

I wonder if that's a software or hardware imitation.

I hope it's hardware or they would be selling vaporware.

Re: Soli

#324

Post by Judgmentality »

landa wrote: post #321
Judgmentality wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dar…

Face ID works way better for me. I couldn't get the fingerprint reader to recognize my stupid sweaty fingers sometimes, but Face ID always works for me. You can unlock your phone in the dark. It doesn't rely on visible light, as it shines its own infrared light on you. You were probably holding your phone too close to your face.

I know how the sensor array works - I've personally built structured light sensors for robots.

It doesn't work for me. I'm glad it works for you.

Re: Soli

#325

Post by mlyle »

GistNoesis wrote: post #322
mlyle wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second quote seems out of context and doesn't occur in the paper you cite. Your first quote says "sensing range below 10m". Yes, it is possible to make long range 60GHz systems-- largely through antenna gain and lenses. Yes, we could build an entirely different radar to track peoples' gross movement--- and could have 20 years ago, too-- but that has largely nothing to do with the original system or your original…

>10000x power alone Sorry to dig this up so late, there is a usual misconception when reasoning with power (which you might suffer from) : What matters is not power, what matter is what we measure. We are measuring electric field in volts whose square is proportional to the power. Going 10x as far, mean measuring a voltage 100x smaller. Even with just the dynamic range if your analog digital converter is reading you…

What matters is signal to noise ratio. There is not really background noise in UHF and up; instead there is thermal noise in the receive amplifier.

If you have SNR of 6dB over some integration interval which gave you acceptable results, and you have 40dB of additional path loss, you're now -34dB, and you need to make that up. There's no "taking half" because we're talking about only a 100x difference in receive voltage.

Put another way, we already "took half"-- our SNR of 6dB (quadruple the power) was already only double the voltage. Our metrics for SNR already take what you're talking about into account.

Dynamic range can be a factor, but you generally have some kind of automatic gain control that increases effective dynamic range (so that in absence of signal, you have noise much bigger than 1LSB showing up at the converter), and the conversion dynamic range "width" of the converter only matters when there are other in-band transmitters around you need to reject (because they limit how far you can turn up the initial gain before saturating the converter).

Note also, not that it relates to what we said at all-- you can detect signals much smaller than 1LSB because of dither.

Post reply on HN