Strictly speaking this doesn't make them a true 3d sensor, but rather a 2d sensor with an accompanying depth-map. In order for them to be true 3d sensors they'd be have to transmit information about both the near and far sides of an object simultaneously, for example.
Very true, a 4 dimensional being with 3 dimensional eyes would be able to look inside closed boxes, and see every side of every object at once. (just like we can see every part of a 2d scene all at once)
Arguably, humans are 4-dimensional beings living in a 4-dimensional world—it’s just that one of the dimensions is accessible with much fewer degrees of freedom.
(Not unlike how a seemingly 2-dimensional world of a top-down FPS is actually 3-dimensional, you just have to follow way more rules when it comes to moving in the third one.)
Hmmm...
Agreed that they're mostly 2D sensors, but apart from near-field the post-processing brain can use depth-cues to for us 'see' in 3D. Also, you don't see in 3D unless your head/eyes/target is moving, right?
I'm curious. Are they in the market in large enough volumes yet? I've been waiting for ages for something better than Li-Ion and LiPo tech to become widely available. We need much higher energy densities, and preferably without the fire hazard.
(Both of these are a couple of years old. I'm sure there's newer data out there that looks even beter.)
Newer batteries chemistries are slowly arriving, but they mostly aren't replacing Li-ion because Li-ion is getting better all the time. Except in specific circumstances. Like the Sodium-Ion ones that work far better at low temperatures and entered mass production two months ago:
There's a component of modern culture that trains and expects people to be extremely pessimistic about long term human development. It results in situations above, where without any further information people just assume by default that were going to run out of a thing and are on some collision course with not just a disaster, but every single conceivable one.
(Gallium is a byproduct of aluminum production. We aren't going to run out.)
My understanding of most elements is if we want more it’s either pretty easy to make from something else we have a lot of, or we need to redo the Big Bang, the latter being, in my opinion, a bit of a disaster scenario.
Even synthesizing helium is prohibitively expensive. Unless you want whatever heavy decay products we have from nuclear waste, synthesizing elements at industrial scale probably isn’t happening.
Unless by “make from something” else you mean extract the element from existing chemical compounds found in Earth, in which case we’re still just using existing deposits on Earth.
On the other hand, it is possible to run out of a metal when all of it is either somewhere in some device or scattered among landfills (i.e. not concentrated in a place like a mine).
That is true, but gallium is present in the aluminum and zinc ores only in minute quantities.
We will not remain without gallium, but it is impossible to scale up the gallium production to a higher level than provided by the current productions of aluminum and zinc.
So there is a maximum level of gallium that can be used per year and it would not be possible to increase the production of blue and white LEDs and of power transistors above that level.
Fortunately, the amount of gallium used per device is very small, so it is not likely that we will hit that level soon. A much more serious problem is the associated consumption of indium, for which the resources are much less.
Practically speaking, sure. It's obviously not cost-effective to extract it. But it's there if someone can get it. I don't expect anyone to be extracting gold from ocean water, but there are other source of other elements that may not be cost-effective now but could be in the future or may simply become necessary despite the cost.
Cost scales with refinement effort, so it just results in more expensive TVs. That said, pretty sure we'll have drowned the planet in landfilled TVs long before this becomes a serious issue
From your earlier comment, your curiosity was more about what happens after we run out.
In your question you stated the running out as a given fact ("When" we run out, not "if").
If that was what you wanted to say I can't tell you, but that's definitely how it was received and thus you also got the harsh response. Since it reads a lot like doomsday thinking.
(Example: Does that mean when we run out of oxygen there are no more humans?
Yes, my curiosity was about when we run out, because I didn’t know if we would run out. That was the whole point of the question. Have some leniency, we’re not all experts about everything.
The only roles that nature put you into are carrying the baby and giving birth (and possibly breastfeeding). Everything else can be done by both parents.
(I'm a dad, who does do half of everything with the kids. It is possible, it's just a lot of stuff to do.)
You don't need to update all of them. Nobody is asking you to give up your Gmail. You can start with the 20 sites you use the most frequently which takes an hour. For the rest, either take time to migrate or leave them in Gmail, since you don't actually need to visit those sites or get updates often.
For me with Firefox/uBlock: none. With chrome without blocker I had one at the top, one in the middle blocking scrolling, one at the bottom in a kinda static bar that can't be removed and one subscribe popup. Pretty nasty but not 7. I guess it depends on your location. But blockers are very effective on it.
Ps I mainly use local AI anyway especially when I put sensitive data in it. I use cloud AI mostly for deep research and there I'm just asking about things I don't know yet so it's not really privacy invasive.
reply