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

381–390 of 442 posts

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

#381

Post by Hehohei »

Podgajski wrote: post #376
Hehohei wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 co…

I have an acoustimeter am-11 which measures RF radiation up to 8 GHz and a 50Hz meter which measures both electric and magnetic field separately. The area I measure is close to my body, not near the source cause that would be stupid. I measure at several angles and positions. My house has background rf EMFs below 5 mircrowatts per meter with no cellphone on in the house. You are making it more complicated than it nee…

The issue is, that we talk about a potential placebo/nocebo effect, which means you need to make sure to get rid of all ambigiousities.

And tbh buying / using a device made by a Anti EMF Page/Company who sells EMF protection is everything but trustworthy.

You know bias, fake shops, gold audio cables, crystals etc.

Now: Have you done a proper blind test? What was your experiment setup? How often did you repeat it? And what does it mean

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

#382

Post by Podgajski »

Eisenstein wrote: post #380
Podgajski wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you just say things without even verifying them with a quick search? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799025/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...

And do you google for studies you don't read and use them to prove a point that the studies don't address?

I have a google scholar alert for it and I read every study no matter the result. Why wouldnt I?

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

#383

Post by whynotminot »

Eisenstein wrote: post #256
1oooqooq wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, but wrong. For 99% of the price point people will pay for VR, it is still there. ...and will be for Apple Vision (non-pro) and Apple VisionSE.

The Quest 2 does not have screen door, which came out two years ago and was/is the majority of the VR market, so I am not sure what you mean.

Uhh, Quest 2 has very obvious screen door effect. My vision is good, but it’s not even fantastic.

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

#384

Post by Podgajski »

Hehohei wrote: post #370
Podgajski wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

I’m noticing you created this account six hours ago and I’m the only one you’ve had any interaction with.

Is that you Apple?

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

#385

Post by Eisenstein »

Podgajski wrote: post #382
Eisenstein wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do you google for studies you don't read and use them to prove a point that the studies don't address?

I have a google scholar alert for it and I read every study no matter the result. Why wouldnt I?

Your linked studies said nothing relevant. Are you going to address my comment or not?

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

#386

Post by FumblingBear »

the_gastropod wrote: post #339
amerkhalid wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it may have something to do with less strain on your eyes when focusing on distant screen than one up close. I have Quest 2, I really enjoy watching flat 2d videos on it. Even with screen-door effect, sometimes, I prefer to watch shows on it.

I'm largely an ignoramus about how eyeballs function. But this sounds... suspicious. When a screen is inches away from your eyeball, isn't your eye focusing on that ? I'd expect a VR headset to cause more eye strain than almost any alternative. Am I misunderstanding something?

My understanding of it is that the eye-strain that people tend to get isn't from your eyes focusing on the glass, but rather due to the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict (VAC)[0]. Essentially, there's a mismatch between the vergence (a movement of both eyes in opposite directions simultaneously for a binocular-style effect), and the accommodation of the eye (the way your eyes change focus based on distance).

When those two things aren't in alignment, you can get a feeling of eye-strain. The way the lenses bend the light make it so the focal length that you're focusing on is further than the screen in front of you, so that isn't what is causing the eye strain.

Mind you, this is just my layman's understanding of the subject, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...

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

#387

Post by Podgajski »

Hehohei wrote: post #381
Podgajski wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an acoustimeter am-11 which measures RF radiation up to 8 GHz and a 50Hz meter which measures both electric and magnetic field separately. The area I measure is close to my body, not near the source cause that would be stupid. I measure at several angles and positions. My house has background rf EMFs below 5 mircrowatts per meter with no cellphone on in the house. You are making it more complicated than it nee…

The issue is, that we talk about a potential placebo/nocebo effect, which means you need to make sure to get rid of all ambigiousities. And tbh buying / using a device made by a Anti EMF Page/Company who sells EMF protection is everything but trustworthy. You know bias, fake shops, gold audio cables, crystals etc. Now: Have you done a proper blind test? What was your experiment setup? How often did you repeat it? And…

I already told you what I purchased. Now you’re just trolling me and it’s useless to continue with you. I was a freaking network engineer I think I know how science works.

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

#388

Post by 93po »

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.

What in the world is anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation? This isn't a phrase that's coming up in any search results and my colleague with a PhD in particle physics has never heard of this phrase.

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

#389

Post by bilalq »

adastra22 wrote: post #334
bilalq wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a worse track record than blockchain. Things are clunky now, but there are some genuinely fun and cool experiences to be had: - Playing table tennis in VR is more fun than in real life since you don't have to go chasing around the room to pick up balls. - I've used VR headsets to show my parents and other elderly folks photosphere shots I've taken from mountain summits that they would never be able…

I said "non-gaming applications." I can see the immediate and obvious application to gaming, even though I'm not a gamer myself. But the hardcore gamers that would use such a device are still a niche market. If Apple's making it, they're expect mass consumer applications though. I just don't see that. Being able to "summit" a mountain without actually being there is an interesting use case though. Thanks for that.

Sorry, I missed that in your earlier post. In terms of experiences that work today outside gaming, I guess we mostly just have 360 videos and virtual workspaces/screens. The former is a novelty and the latter has been held back by display capabilities. The Vision Pro might actually be good enough for that latter use-case though.

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

#390

Post by cassianoleal »

DreaminDani wrote: post #34
cassianoleal wrote: post #17

Is it just me misremembering, or is the light seal (last picture carousel on the website) a lot larger than when they originally presented it last year? It looks like it will stick out to the front a lot. They seem to "hide" this fact by having nearly all pictures at a 90 degrees angle from the face.

It looks the same to me. A lot of the models wearing the headset appear to be shots from last year's WWDC. The image of the light seal on its own looks like it matches those original images.

Fair enough. Maybe I just didn’t notice it during the WWDC presentation. I had the impression it would stick out a lot less.
Post reply on HN