News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.