News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by cm2012 on Monday October 01, 2018 @12:40AM (#18110086)
The last time I compared Magic Leap to Theranos I was downvoted to -4 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16713546). It's interesting to see people's reasoning back then vs the product now, 6 months later.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by threeseed on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:21AM (#18110403)
You deserved to be downvoted for that because (a) it's a baseless accusation and (b) it was intellectually lazy.

Theranos committed crimes and their fraudulent behaviour directly impacted on people's lives. There is no evidence Magic Leap has done either and there is nothing illegal or immoral about pivoting on your product.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by jjeaff on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:56AM (#18110503)
I agree with what you said, except, is making big promises then not delivering really "pivoting"?
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by skrebbel on Monday October 01, 2018 @03:25AM (#18110623)
Yes.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by skrebbel on Monday October 01, 2018 @05:40AM (#18111164)
I got downvotes,which is fair because my comment was stupid because I didn't read the comments I was replying to carefully enough. I missed the "delete" deadline so sorry about the baseless noise.

Of course delivering shitty results isn't pivoting.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by mrhappyunhappy on Monday October 01, 2018 @08:37AM (#18111995)
Of topic: who cares if you get upvotes or downvotes? Do people actually care what others think of their comments? Please, state the unpopular opinion however brashly you choose.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by falsedan on Monday October 01, 2018 @08:50AM (#18112087)
I see karma as a bank for paying for incredibly trashy comments: for every upvote I vow to write at least one thoughtless hot take and defend it to the death
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by tomxor on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:09AM (#18113251)
Here take my upvotes :P take them!
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by baq on Monday October 01, 2018 @09:17AM (#18112250)
Actually I don't think you're that wrong to be honest :)
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by gkoberger on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:23AM (#18110224)
There's a huge difference between a highly funded startup that is trying to build something completely revolutionary and hasn't quite gotten there yet, and a company actively and knowingly engaging in fraud in the medical space.

Nobody is going to die because of Magic Leap.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by manigandham on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:30AM (#18110258)
> highly funded startup that is trying to build something completely revolutionary and hasn't quite gotten there yet

That's exactly what Theranos was, until it wasn't.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by gkoberger on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:33AM (#18110268)
Sure, but so far Magic Leap hasn't done anything illegal or unethical or immoral... they've just been a bit behind schedule.

They also aren't in the medical space. Nobody is going to die because of them.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by cm2012 on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:37AM (#18110284)
With all of their secrecy, you have no idea if they're being unethical or not. Their marketing materials are certainly nothing near reality.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by threeseed on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:23AM (#18110409)
You're being completely disingenuous.

Magic Leap is a glorified toy. It is not going to affect your life.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by ytpete on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:52PM (#18115039)
Seems like you're moving the goalposts though: the original question was whether Magic Leap is "unethical," not how much damage they could do by being unethical. Releasing much-hyped, highly-produced, and very compelling marketing content while knowing your company can't possibly deliver on it certainly meets my bar for unethical.

It's certainly not as bad as Theranos, sure - but bilking consumers (or investors) can still be unethical too. If your bar for a company acting unethical requires literally killing people, you'll be overlooking a lot of bad behavior...

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by pavlov on Monday October 01, 2018 @04:39AM (#18110924)
I’d agree otherwise, but the article mentions that Magic Leap is bidding for a $500M military contract.

Putting these toy lenses on soldiers can get people killed — both the fighters themselves as well as civilians are at risk from these digital goggles that block 86% of incoming light unless the AR graphics can do something really, really useful in the battlefield.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by jobigoud on Monday October 01, 2018 @05:16AM (#18111075)
I doubt it's for the battlefield. More likely for planning, where you'd have a briefing with several people around a tabletop projection of the ground scene and AR tanks and characters moving around.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by jtbayly on Monday October 01, 2018 @07:02AM (#18111536)
FTA: “for use with troops in the field (as opposed to training).”

Not quite clear either way. You could still be right, but the implication seems to be otherwise.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by darkerside on Monday October 01, 2018 @07:42AM (#18111717)
Until they start faking results to the DoD, the analogy falls completely flat
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by bryanrasmussen on Monday October 01, 2018 @08:08AM (#18111848)
I wonder what legal repercussions one would be open to for faking results to DoD.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by UpshotKnothole on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:44AM (#18113719)
If the F35 is an example, I’d say a trillion dollar, ten year contract?
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by maxxxxx on Monday October 01, 2018 @09:34AM (#18112350)
The Theranos board is looking for work and just the right people to move such a deal forward :)
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by _pmf_ on Monday October 01, 2018 @09:00AM (#18112149)
> That's exactly what Theranos was, until it wasn't.

You conveniently skipped the part where Magic Leap isn't actively engaging in medical fraud.

Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by arzel on Monday October 01, 2018 @03:52AM (#18110739)
Imagine comparing Theranos to a toy.
Re:Magic Leap Review Part I by tomxor on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:12AM (#18113313)
I don't think Theranos is a good comparison... but I don't think it's fair to characterise AR as a toy either, some people probbaly said the same about early incarnations of the technology that drove high resolution colour displays, lots of technology looks like shiny toys to begin with, but that's only because you cannot forsee it's applicaiton... AR is definately general enough to have very useful applications.