What is the actual objective of this, is it solving an issue or creating a solution to a problem, that is still to be determined? It seems like a lot of energy to replicate a lidar mapping system. It's not like you can expect accurate dimensions from this approximate guess work, excluding the expected hallucinations adding to inaccuracy.

3D reconstruction of old spaces which no longer exist seems like a clear use case to me. There's loads of old videos of driving down a street in the 80s, or neighborhoods in cities which got replaced.

I can imagine future iterations of this which bring together other stills of the same space at that time to augment the dataset. Then perhaps another pass to fill in gaps with likely missing content based on probability or data from say the same street 10 years later.

It won't be 100% real, but I think it'd be very cool to be able to have a google-street view style experience of areas before google street view existed.

> it'd be very cool to be able to have a google-street view style experience of areas before google street view existed.

Now do Kowloon Walled City.

Video cameras are much cheaper and easier to use than LIDAR, like anyone can just pull out their phone, take a video and send it to this algorithm to get a reasonable point cloud of the environment. Sure, if you want an exact model of an environment and you have the time and money, LIDAR would give better results, but this is about doing more with less

We use drones with RGB cameras for photogrammetry to reconstruct 3D environments with gaussian splatting, which is a manual process and often requires making multiple trips for additional capture to fill in gaps. Because it's for perceptual use and doesn't require high accuracy, automating with a single-take video would be useful.

One of the key issues of "machine perception" is the inability of machines using standard image sensors to re-create the world accurately.

Lidars are great, and getting smaller, but they still eat a lot of power. (The quest 3 had a lidar on the front[well structured light] and it was mostly not used)

For machines to understand the 3d world, first they need to extract geometry, then isolate those geometries into objects. This method is _a_ way to do that, the first step, extracting 3d points.

The problem with this model is that the points are not actually that well aligned frame to frame. This is why it looks a bit blurry. I assume this is to avoid running out of memory, as you're not quite sure about which points are relevant and need to be kept in memory.

Once you have those points, you need to replace them with simplfied geometry, so that you can workout intersections and junk.

N00b question from me, perhaps, but how easy is it to mount and run Lidar on aerial drones?

It's easy but it's not cheap. Well, price is relative but capturing video is certainly cheaper.

Also, I am not sure how heavy LIDAR units are, but remember that the heavier the payload the more the flight time is reduced. Some drones can only have a single payload, so if you also want to capture (high-res) video/imgs you need to fly again.

It all depends on the use-case.

The most available lidar is found on your iPhone, but the results are orders of magnitude less detailed than that derived from photogrammetry. How ever an advantage is that lidar is not confused by reflections.

Huh? LIDAR absolutely is confused by reflections. Not always the reflections you can see (because often it’s using IR wavelengths) but nonetheless, reflections.

The actual objective is learning about these systems. It's called research.

You can reconstruct accurate dimensions if you have IMU data.

I'm not sure about the NewPipe angle, as Grey Jay exists (Backed by FUTO/Louis Rossman) on the Play store, which has ad-block and sponsor block incorporated into it. Google is just being malicious towards opensource and privacy, under the guise of security

Not neccesarily a guise of security, but perhaps a different means of security. E.g. securing stock investments, profits, monies, etc. Nothing is 100% secure, you can't be in the void and still call it a void, etc

The game does have a mature rating, so parents should be vetting their activity.

I would still contend and say the gambling aspect, with real money, is a net negative to the community.

But is the game rated mature due to violence, or due to gambling? I might be okay with my kid playing a game just because it has violence, but that doesn't mean I'm wanting to sign them up for gambling, but I'm curious if the mature rating even covers that since it's more of a meta-game thing and not actually part of the "game" itself.

It’s been rated M since the 90s, well before loot crates were a thing.

There's a big difference between 15 and 18 though...

I think most countries have much stricter enforcement for gambling age limits, too. If you sell a kid a copy of GTA5 that's their parents problem, but if you allow kids into your casino it's your problem.

The problem is defining what falls under those laws. Companies sell trading card boxes with random contents. McDonalds had its Monopoly game. There are many more examples of things that are gambling with money, accessible to kids and still allowed in most countries.

McDonalds Monopoly game was a sweepstakes, you could get game pieces for free by simply asking, which is why it doesn't fall afoul of gambling laws.

McDonald’s at least has AMOE and you don’t have to spend a cent to play. It’s certainly the less convenient path, purposely, though.

Typically legal gambling has age limits by law, while the age recommendation for video games is just that, an recommendation. It isn't illegal for a 14 year old to play a game recommended to 18 year olds. Don't know how it works in the US specifically, at least how it works in other places.

I'm guessing the video games industry's attempt at self-regulating with PEGI and similar efforts actually paid off.

I can't speak for your country, but in Australia it's illegal to sell MA15+ rated material to an under 15, and R18+ material to an under 18. CS is MA15+.

From an objective legal standpoint in some jurisdictions, the answer is clearly yes

By and large, yeah.

You don't need to play the game to gamble.

How many kids do you have?

This is the exact channel that came to mind when I saw the headline, his work is fantastic.

It makes the argument of the open internet being unable to function without advertising, quite hard to prop up. Especially when over 70% of traffic if just people gaming the system, to real users detriment.

It's a huge argument for dumb advertisement that doesn't track people or clicks.

You know, the kind that existed before Google created their thing.

Replicating something like a form factor of a Gameboy cart is a cool idea, you could probably get away with a I2C EEEPROM of a size large enough for a single rom.

The amount of people that design and repair electronics is significantly smaller than the people that use electronics, that doesn't mean RasPi should ignore them. They boast opensource development, but seem to be working counter to that.

It makes is substantially easier to work with known design docs, and RasPi want people to use their hardware in embedded applications.

It's not like you can replicate their hardware with just the schematic. Its awesome to see other filling the gap, but its a gap that has no need to exist.

I agree that they shouldn't be ignored, but... how to compel companies to share schematics, in the absence of enlightened legislation?

The original mission was to get kids into computing with a low cost board, something akin to the C64 back in the 80s. But apparently that is only as user and not as a creator. I'd argue that getting kids into computing at the hardware level is even more important now.

But I think in some small part the RPi Foundation has captured itself and turned into a for profit company where the original mission takes a back seat.

Yeah. The IPO really baked in some negative things.

It is most definitely about the products sales team sizing up the potential client and how much they can get the client to pay, based on the company size and turn over. It's possible for the client to negotiate, but the product sales team have jack up the price way over their internal list price, so any client savings is only a fallacy

Maybe its just me, but this P&E arch is underwhelming and screams similar issues AMD bulldozer again. Claims of massive core counts with mediocre performance, and little control over how things are assigned to the cores. Maybe that will improve over time with improved schedulers, but I doubt it. Its looks like an architectural issue. The experience feels so inconstant, even ending up worse than the prior generations with all normal P cores with lower core counts. I'm avoiding Intel P&E CPUs with anything that needs consistent performance, as my limited experience with the new Intel chips leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth, and a frustrating computing experience.

I see the heterogeneous architectures as mostly a plus. If you want the most throughput for a highly parallel workload given a power and silicon budget 100% E cores would be best. If you have some workloads that don't parallelize well then a few P cores are best. Heterogeneous gives possibilities to optimize for both cases. There is another knob to turn, and mistakes can be made, but this should be an overall positive.

My bigger concern with the newer Intel CPUs are the crashes and reliability issues that were reported.

You do realise every single Smartphone has had P&E core for the past 6 - 7 years? The problem is more with Intel.

Secure boot doesn't stop user-space malicious activity.

I'd argue that it only helps check a tick box on corporate security manifest, as it indicates the kernel being booted, is not tampered with.

OP was being sarcastic