Live data from Hacker News

This App Trains You to See Farther

popularmechanics.com

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#61
post #39
post #38

> " When a major league baseball pitcher throws a 95-mph fastball, only about 400 milliseconds—the duration of a blink—pass before the ball rockets over the plate. And a batter gets less than half that time to decide whether to swing, and where. Baseball" Bah! That's not a knife. This is a knife: twitch FPS gaming. Quake Live at 250 FPS, refreshed at 144hz, with any day . Interestingly, my vision is extremely good. I…

You would lose the bet :-) Keep in mind that the ball is coming straight on, and the batter must discern trajectory (rising, falling) and spin (which affects how the ball curves) and velocity quickly enough that you still have time to move the bat. For example, a fastball and a changeup both drop at the same rate and spin at the same rate. One is coming at 100mph, the other at 75. Since the ball is heading straight f…

I usually don't like to neatpick, but please say speed when you mean it. Velocity is a vector, it is a speed and a trajectory. Thanks.

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#63
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This app specifically improves clear vision at farther distances, which seems far more useful on a daily basis, especially since a lot of people don't have good vision. Compared to twitch games that only improve reaction time in a very limited practically applicable scope. Considering the small amounts of time investment necessary to get good results, this app seems much more useful than playing quake.

The way the app works seems to me to be a subset of what's required to play Quake well, so if it works I'd bet Quake works better. I also think Quake has other benefits (like reaction time training, spatial awareness, etc, etc) but it could have other downsides too.

A hunch about the benefits of Quake is fine. But, elevating that to a status of belief in such short order seems a little wacky, even if you turn out to be right.

"Onto something" is far from "got something".

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#64
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating. I couldn't get it to work for me. Maybe I didn't gaze long enough at the color images. Or maybe it's my introversion: "One paper found that it is stronger in extroverts than introverts, and might be a reliable test for extroversion."

To me it's pretty obvious how it works. It's a somewhat unusual pattern, and your mind is trying to remember where it saw it before and apply some of it. (In point of fact you just saw it a few minutes ago, so that's what you're remembering - it's not a long-term thing.) If you look carefully at the word at the end of this paragraph I can't imagine that you don't see at least some of the appropriate colors faintly in…

Nope. Nothing like that. I don't see any colors in Google. Just plain old black and white. (Or black and whatever this HN background is.)

But I sure see the McCollough colors. They won't go away!

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#65
post #8

The image that they show reminds me of the way that the 2D discrete cosine transform works. http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/512/312/2680596/2680596_pone.0... It looks similar to this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Dctjpeg....

Reminds me of the game Frequon Invaders. (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!i+frequon+invaders)

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#67
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would lose the bet :-) Keep in mind that the ball is coming straight on, and the batter must discern trajectory (rising, falling) and spin (which affects how the ball curves) and velocity quickly enough that you still have time to move the bat. For example, a fastball and a changeup both drop at the same rate and spin at the same rate. One is coming at 100mph, the other at 75. Since the ball is heading straight f…

I usually don't like to neatpick, but please say speed when you mean it. Velocity is a vector, it is a speed and a trajectory. Thanks.

Not to nitpick, but I think you mean nitpick.

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#68
post #8

The image that they show reminds me of the way that the 2D discrete cosine transform works. http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/512/312/2680596/2680596_pone.0... It looks similar to this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Dctjpeg....

It's called a "Gabor patch", and it's constructed by multiplying a 1D sine wave by a 2D gaussian window (it's the sine wave that's reminding you of the basis functions of the 2D DCT). You'll see these all over the place if you read studies about vision. The (highly oversimplified) reason is that if you imagine the edge-detection processes of a mammalian brain as a set of filters, the impulse response of one of those…

Even more closely related would be a wavelet transform with windowed sine packet wavelets.

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#69
post #58
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way the app works seems to me to be a subset of what's required to play Quake well, so if it works I'd bet Quake works better. I also think Quake has other benefits (like reaction time training, spatial awareness, etc, etc) but it could have other downsides too.

> [...] but it could have other downsides too. Like sitting on your ass? (I like Quake, but I wouldn't pretend I play it for anything but fun.) There's also some research that shows that RTS are the best thing for practicing multitasking and fast decision making under uncertainty.

Any benefits are purely a side effect for me. I play because I love competitive gaming.

Re: This App Trains You to See Farther

#70
post #63
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way the app works seems to me to be a subset of what's required to play Quake well, so if it works I'd bet Quake works better. I also think Quake has other benefits (like reaction time training, spatial awareness, etc, etc) but it could have other downsides too.

A hunch about the benefits of Quake is fine. But, elevating that to a status of belief in such short order seems a little wacky, even if you turn out to be right. "Onto something" is far from "got something".

I probably said it that way so I could hear nice arguments about why I'm wrong. Sorry if that's trollish :-)
Post reply on HN