People have been eagerly waiting to hear what this secretive startup company has been working all these years, especially after the recent funding rounds. All of this to be disappointed with a half baked v1 and launch video.

All that aside, I think it's brave of them to enter a competitive market and introduce a unique product that could have potential but at this price point, I'll have to pass. Hope future iterations get better and continues to grow.

Congratulations to all the team at Humane who's been working on this over the years, especially those who took the risk of leaving Apple to join a startup.

Now, this thing's introduced and what? The laser interface seems clunky, no idea how it holds up on a bright day outside. Most of the interactions are done by voice which, at least for me, have never been satisfactory on way more powerful and polished devices. Then there's the privacy - I'm assuming that for this thing to work I need to give it access to everything. How long has this company been operating and battle testing its security? How good or bad its track record is with regard to selling my data? And yes, I know that my smartphone already knows everything about me. But those things are built by either Apple or Google which at least have some track record and I know what I can expect from them, more or less.

I still don't understand what am I getting here? What's the revolutionary, exciting thing? The AI? The lasers? The voice interface? The always-on-your-person?

If I remove the lasers, add a screen and a OpenAI/whateverLLM interface & integration I get what? An Apple Watch (or Google or whatever) that's 1-2 years out probably.

What's nice however that they're trying things. The laser thing does seem cool.

edit: Commas, sentence structure.

But I also understand this is how many new technologies releases go (lots of WTFs and lots of oohs and aahs). I think it really has potential, but the team will have to be adaptive and quick to respond to make sure the Pin can really grab hold of what the consumer wants.

This reminds me a lot of Google Glass. Cool technology, but they forgot the WHY.

    [msg_type variable_length_message]

Most game systems use

    [msg_type msg_length variable_length_message]

It seems like there's an easy way to retrofit the protocol without breaking it for older clients (as long as older clients truncate packets once a message type is unknown). Put a new message type at the end of the packet, with a list of message start offsets in it. By including its own offset as the last element, the start of the list is easily found. The first message offset could be omitted, since it is implicitly zero.

The primary technical designer of Second Life did a very good job. Then he had a disagreement with management and was fired. So he went to Facebook, developed their mobile client, became a Facebook VP, made lots of money, and was semi-retired for a while.

Scaling to a big world is really hard. Big has two dimensions - area and density. The Second Life architecture scales well in area but not in population density. More than 20-30 users in a region will choke it. More are possible if most users sit down and doesn't move, because sitters are not getting physical simulation. So audience-type events work.

Improbable was working on large crowds, but their solution is really expensive to run. Which is why they just do demos of Otherside for a few hours at a time every few months. Also, they use very simple avatars and do not, as yet, support vehicles. Took them over US$500 million to get to that point. They have dynamic regions - more people, divide the world into smaller chunks. That introduces a whole range of new problems. What if I have 20 people on my boat, and a region boundary moves under the boat while I'm crossing it? Stuff like that. Fixed region crossings involving multiple avatars and vehicles are troublesome in Second Life. People do try bus tours, but sometimes an avatar gets Left Behind at a region crossing. Linden Lab's devs have been trying to fix that for at least 8 years, without success. It's a tough problem in real time distributed system design.

Presumably they could have a negotiation process that newer clients invoke to upgrade the message stream to a new format, and support both in parallel on the backend until an insignificant number of sessions were using the old version.

I remember a post from him where he said something like "Note to self: next time spend more than a week(end) on the scripting language". :-)

That is no longer the case. There are projects starting to come out which are open source and building on top of AOSP like GrapheneOS, CalyxOS and a few others but those two are solid options at the moment.

I am not sure why GrapheneOS doesn't get mentioned here on HN but it's seriously a wonderful project that includes privacy features not available even on iOS. They are this far ahead of the game when it comes to privacy and security. Highly recommend checking them out.

https://grapheneos.org

Probably because with GrapheneOS you have to rely on Android phone vendors which lock down the devices more every year. In my opinion, this is not a sustanable solution in the long term. GNU/Linux phones could be more sustainable.

I used to think manual was the "only" way for driving fast sport cars until I test drove a Nissan GTR Nismo producing 850hp. The speed between shifts is faster than your eyes can blink (even at low speeds). It's something you can't do justice by describing. The only way to believe it is to try it.

With all that said, I don't quiet see EV manufactures going manual anytime soon since we're still in a transitional period with many challenges and problems to solve before serving a niche market. Plus, most drivers nowadays that are looking to drive a manual car, probably aren't shopping for an EV.

It's about control.

It's about disengaging the clutch instantly, and re-engaging just as fast. It's about feathering the clutch, and fast drops from 6th to 1st.

It is about control, and about feel too. It is about the driver deciding, not a machine.

So sure, speed maybe, but not control.

Feathering the clutch is mostly useless in everyday driving and performance driving. Likewise, dropping from 6th to 1st. Above 20mph, it's nearly always a mistake to downshift to 1st, and who is going 20mph in 6th?

The only legitimate reason I can see to prefer a 3 pedal gearbox over a DCT is the ability to clutch kick to initiate oversteer, which is purely for drifting.

Mostly 3 pedal cars are useful for a display of mastery, but 99% of drivers fall way short, and don't even realize it, leaving gobs of performance on the table or mismatching revs and introducing undesirable weight transfer.

There is nothing an abacus does better than a calculator, but I don't begrudge abacus aficionados, and abacus mastery is quite impressive.

Source: Porsche Driving Instructor for 5 years with thousands of hours in the passenger seat.

I agree with all your points. I have lots of track experience and training with a range of cars, including Porsche and one of my favorite "no pucker factor" cars, track-modified BRZ. In fact, next year I am hoping to go to Formula 3 training [0].

That said, for street and lots of track driving, I think the manual (stick shift) transmission is simple, brilliant and can be used to develop skills and understanding. The other aspect of these transmissions is that they are simple and inexpensive to maintain and repair. Their next generation computer-controlled dual clutch manuals are fantastic, of course. However, I really think full manuals still have a lot of value.

You might appreciate that I have taken all of my kids through race driving school as a requirement --at least by my standards-- for being safe street drivers. They've spent a good deal of time at both Willow Springs Raceway and the local Porsche Experience Center learning and doing fun things with cars.

Nothing like being on track behind a car driven by your kid, seeing him come out of a 120 mph sweeper sideways (because another driver made a mistake in front of him and he had to react) and then watch him instantly correct the situation to conclude: Yeah, he can drive. It also removed any desire in them to go fast on the street and do stupid things with cars.

[0] https://simracewaydrivingschool.com/programs-experiences/rac...

This is one of the most important principles, akin to running away from a fight given martial arts training.

Never thought of it that way at all, but, yes, you are right.

I am of the belief that our approach to educating young drivers is nothing short of an accident factory. They actually come out thinking they can drive.

I still remember our last experience with that. They had to do 6 hours with an "instructor" and then complete 50 hours with an adult licensed driver.

The six hour course was, from my perspective, almost a joke. Sure, they get to experience and learn rules of the road in practice and that has value. The problem is that after only six hours with an instructor who, venture a guess, can't really drive, they get dropped on their head to rely on the nearest licensed adult --who also can't drive-- to learn.

One of the first things I have always done when teaching someone to drive is to immediately explore the extremes. That means, at the very least, full throttle acceleration, full-hard braking and rapid lane changes. Dry and wet if conditions allow. Of course, there's a progression to this, but we certainly get there within a couple of hours or less and practice over many days.

I remember a family friend who broke out crying when I told her to press the accelerator all the way and hold it there until I said to release it. To be clear, she was crying before we ran the test...in a minivan. After calming things down, she agree to do it. The reaction was typical "Oh, that wasn't so bad at all". Too many Hollywood movies.

Braking is another one. Most people never brake hard until they have that first accident or near have one. When I show them what full braking means, they are always blown away by how hard a car can brake without disintegrating. When I tell them "brake as hard as you can", they think they are, but they rarely get there. I often have to say something like "really stomp on it this time" after the first attempt. Again, perspective changing in many ways.

And then there's the lane changing. We start slow and progress to "as violently as you can" on dry pavement. This, too, blows people away. Once they have good control I put them in a sports car and repeat the drill. Disbelief describes what they experience.

After that, I try to get them on a racetrack to gain a better understanding of vehicle dynamics and, if a wet skid-pad is available, all the things you can do there.

Over the years several of my small group of (friends and family) students have come back to me to tell me how they were able to avoid having an accident due to one or more of the drills I put them through when they were learning. That's always cool to hear.

Driver training doesn't come close to making safe drivers at all. Not to go too far, this morning, around 3 AM, someone died on the south-bound 5. I was raining. The story so far is that the guy got on the freeway, changed lanes, lost control, slammed into the center divider, bounced off and then crashed into a passing car...killing that driver of that car. Did not need to happen.

Using manual for enjoyment (that you're saying) is different than using for control (as in there's an actual benefit) that GP said. Rick answered precisely that point. There's no benefit to the "control" offered.

Yes, actually, there is benefit. Rick disagreeing, doesn't mean those benefits magically vanish.

The benefit is in the snow, on dirt roads, on windy, twisty paved roads.

The benefit exists on high end, but more so for the average car.

I grew up in Canada, live here, and cut my teeth delivering pizza, on manuals, in any weather. Warm suuny days, or -25C in a snow storm, pizza was delivered. On dirt, pavement, concrete, in freezing rain, pizza was delivered.

Try googling "lake effect snow". Try googling "ice bridge".

You know when you feather a clutch? When trying to ever so gently, get moving on ice or slick snow.

Normal torque of even the weakest car, will have you spinning, digging a hole.

You want to stop fast? On a rural, soft, dirt road? Like when a moose, or deer, appears in front of you?

Many non-porche cars do not have multi-piston breaking systems. Slamming the brakes on, and throwing the car into 1st, has, in a front wheel drive, the effect of you "digging in" to the dirt. Braking distance can drop to 1/5th in such a case.

No you won't destroy the tranny or clutch, for by the time you get it in first, and clutch, your foot floored on the brake has already dropped speed. Not to mention, do you want to burn a little clutch, or smash into a moose?

There are other scenarios too, but urban Californians, driving high end cars, won't run into the same ones.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing, and I agree with the 99% figure, but we aren't discussibg stunts, or track driving here.

I mean, is it common in California, to throw a couple of bags of sand, into the trunk of rear wheel drive cars, so that in the winter you have weight over the rear wheels?

> There is nothing an abacus does better than a calculator, but I don't begrudge abacus aficionados, and abacus mastery is quite impressive.

Cheers!

Madness.

You may be right about that 99%, but there are probably 1/100 the number of manual cars, compared to 50 years ago.

So it all works out in the end.

These days, I spend most of my time in VS Code, I frankly don't know if it's less overhead than VS, but it's definitely more responsive. I can't stand working on web projects in VS proper. The plugin model for Code just seems to work so much better in practice. Definitely learned from the past, even if it's a web app, it still works really well compared to alternatives. Integrated terminal and unobtrusive directory tree are godsends.