Yeah Yoto is our family’s iPad alternative to avoid exposing the kids to too much screen time. On car trips or when they’re just being wild we break them out and the kids love trading story cards and then zoning out and listening. Highly recommended.
I think the issue is less about whether it’s a good idea or not, but rather that AR interfaces essentially HAVE to be translucent (unless you’re doing video passthrough) — so might as well figure out how to get it right.
In AR the user needs to be able to tell which objects are real (R) and which are virtual/injected (A), but the latter type doesn’t need to be indicated by transparency. Consider the scenario where, instead of conventional HUD-type AR, we could conjure up the A elements as physical objects into thin air by magic. There is no particular reason why those would have to be translucent. Sure, depending on the situation it can be useful to control their opacity in order to be able to see what’s behind them, but otherwise there is no more reason than for real physical objects.
It appears extremely hard. From what I can tell, localized opacity has only been commercialized once, by Magic Leap, at insane expense and questionable quality.
What information do you have that this is “not particularly hard”?
The insane expense and questionable quality in magic leap was the projection system, not the darkening.
As for what information I have, I could link you some press releases from FlexEnable, but how about I simply point out that you can slap a commodity grayscale LCD on the outside of any pair of glasses, whether or not they have an AR projector.
There are multiple brands of sunglasses and AR glasses that can already do global tinting with the press of a button, you just need to split that up.
The hardest part is getting the alignment right, but you already did the hard alignment work if you build AR glasses. Also making things as light as possible is hard but glasses that are a bit heavy are still valid solutions.
I think he’s more saying that if you’re fat and you want to lose weight (and keep it off) you have to develop an obsession with food — that it requires an enormous amount of constant attention and effort, unlike the relationship with food that normal-weight people can enjoy.
This is why GLP-1s are so interesting. They suppress hunger, but more importantly they suppress “food noise” — the state of constantly thinking about food. You can separate this effect from appetite suppression due to its seemingly global (although still anecdotal) effect on ALL compulsive behavior, from drinking to smoking to shopping.
For me, the problem is that it's a lot more work and effort to find healthy foods in a society where unhealthy foods are the norm. I want to be able to go somewhere and order fresh healthy food to eat for example, because keeping things at home leads to risk of spoiling and mold, and that leads me to avoid keeping them at home, but when I go out to eat, I don't know how to get that healthy food, only fast food, but my doctor already says that the oils in fast food are killing my liver which is very bad.
I wish I could just go to a restaurant style place and just like order fresh fruit or something.
This is definitely something I’ve noticed — it’s not about naïve role-priming at all, but rather about language usage.
“You are an expert doctor, help me with this rash I have all over” will result in a fairly useless answer, but using medical shorthand — “pt presents w bilateral erythema, need diff dx” — gets you exactly what you’re looking for.
This is completely incorrect. Fluoride is not a component of native enamel, nor is it recognized as an essential nutrient in any way.
Topically-applied fluoride converts hydroxyapatite in enamel into hydroxyfluorapatite, a harder substance that resists bacterial decay. It has no benefits for the rest of your body, and when intake becomes excessive it can interfere with skeletal development and cause brittle bones.
Fluoride belongs on your teeth, not in your stomach.
https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/about/about-dental-fluorosis... claims consumed fluoride is used when first growing teeth, which occurs beneath the gums and where no topical fluoride is applied. This also seems to be how fluorosis occurs, from excessive consumption of fluoride, with too much being digested and too much ending up in tooth enamel.
But further research points to https://www.adaq.org.au/Web/Web/Profession/Fluoridation_FAQs... , where item 4 indicates that, while true that fluoride is used when enamel is first formed, that it does little regarding cavities as the vast bulk of the work is done topically as you say, after the tooth erupts.
I can't find anything stating fluoride is required by children to form tooth enamel, or what happens when fluoride is topically applied but somehow not swallowed.
Fluoride on teeth is a bit like making gorilla glass - infusing atoms into a surface with different bond strengths and lengths to make a material that’s more durable than the original.
You're the one who is incorrect here. We do, in fact, consume fluoride all the time in the food we eat and it has a role in bone and tooth health. The vast majority of people get more than enough in their regular diet (brewed tea has a fair amount) but there are probably extreme cases where a supplement might be required. Banning them is dumb and confidently posting about things you don't know for sure is worse.
Confidently posting links without reading or understanding them is worst of all. Your source does not remotely contradict my point. This says that, while we harmlessly consume incidental fluorine from the environment all the time, there is no recommended or minimum intake. That’s because it is not an essential nutrient. Its only use mentioned here is the prevention of dental caries, and then only when applied topically.
There is no such thing as “enough” consumed fluorine. Consuming fluorine bypasses your teeth, the only place it does any good. Enamel is not generated with fluorine in it; it must be applied afterward for anticavity benefits.
There appear to be multiple sources stating that mild fluorosis is associated with increased resistance to cavities, e.g. [0], which seems inconsistent with your statement.
