You can buy [1] polarization cameras, both mono and with a Bayer filter. They're expensive right now, but I agree it would be really cool to see what could be done with a consumer grade version in a smart phone.
Interesting. From what I can find the pixel format is 4 polarization directions per pixel, 45 degrees apart. Even though there are 4 channels this doesn't allow to deduce the V Stokes parameter (this camera can't capture circular polarization). Technically one channel is redundant here, but I guess it can be useful for reducing error.
I wonder if an alternative pixel format, with 3 polarization directions 60 degrees apart and a circular polarization channel would be desirable for some applications.
In most US jurisdictions a material change to employment conditions is grounds for an unemployment claim even if the employee voluntarily resigns. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing requiring in office for a remote job, or what Dell did would constitute this.
This also removes the loophole of a company reducing an employee's salary to minimum wage rather than laying them off. They could still quit and get unemployment.
Amazon's search is so bad that it's almost certainly intentional in order to get customers to look at more products. This is a great example of them using their monopoly power to increase their revenue to the detriment of consumers.
For an idea of what it could be, try the search on electronic component distributor sites like Digikey[1] and Newark[2]. They are both improving their search in order to attract more customers benefiting all customers in the process.
Try to find a 34 inch 1080p monitor with both VGA and DisplayPort inputs on Amazon and you'll find yourself reading hundreds of monitor product pages. If Amazon had serious competition you could probably find and buy one in 5 or 6 clicks, or easily determine that such a combination of features doesn't exist.
I’m skeptical that making users spend a long time trying to find the right monitor would actually be good for Amazon’s revenue or that Amazon would intentionally optimize for it. If the typical user really experienced that struggle, many would probably give up without making a purchase.
To hazard a guess, I’d speculate that apparent poor quality of search results is more likely Amazon trying to push customers toward items where Amazon earns more margin. The average customer probably just buys the first/cheapest result and isn’t going to spend hours scouring the product pages. There’s a lot of complexity in Amazon’s relationships with suppliers, fee structure, and warehouses/logistics that could affect the revenue-optimizing search ranking but isn’t obvious to the user.
Amazon deliberately leading users to a suboptimal product because they get more margin seems like exactly the sort of thing that competition should help to resolve (or at least limit). The fact that search is so bad is probably evidence of too little competition.
I have to wonder if it's fundamentally appealing to a different type of customer.
You don't window-shop Digi-key. You're pretty much buying on spec sheets alone. I want to see all 330 ohm 1/4 watt through-hole resistors, now sort by price and availability in the quantity I need, then maybe discard products that don't meet some other criteria that I can't directly filter for. There's very little chance of making a sale through a slicker marketing campaign.
Conversely, people buying a single monitor might be browsing, potentially swayed by the right language and graphics on the landing pages. I'm pretty sure those bloody finches sold more ViewSonic monitors than any other aspect of their product line. For a window-shopping customer, getting the customer to see as many of them as possible improves their chances of a sale.
On the other hand, I will concur that Amazon's search is a disaster for computer products. I suspect it's also terrible in other verticals that have clear, well-defined "faceted search" concepts, but we probably have the most experience with that one here. I suspect it may be a casualty of their broadness of categories-- why spend the labour to provide really killer search if it hasn't proven to be an impediment to sales yet?
1. Cell phones from 30,000 ft are going to produce incredibly low resolution images, especially when taken through the window of an airliner. They're also all going to be oblique.
2. If you use real camera rigs, you're going to have to pay a fortune to outfit enough planes. Given that you don't control where the asset goes, this seems really inefficient.
3. Does the entire US actually get covered by all those flights? While ATC tries to give direct routing a lot more than they used to it still seems like you're going to end up with areas where planes hardly ever fly. I'd be really curious to see for a given swath what revisit rate you could get with what confidence from historical ADS-B data.
Please don't take this negatively. I previously cofounded an aerial imagery company and have designed aerial camera systems for a large aerospace company. I came up with an idea like yours, but wrote it off for the reasons I mentioned. It's really cool to see someone pursuing it. Feel free to reach out if you'd like. My email is cornell at cgw3 dot org.
I think it does for a few very specific reasons. I'll answer your questions in order:
1. Resolution is a function of altitude, atmospheric conditions, and camera capabilities. At 30,000ft with zoom, we can get results around 10cm/px on an average smartphone (iPhone SE 2). That's still pretty sharp but we can further enhance the image using satellite base maps, upscaling, and other inference techniques. Obliques can be corrected and used to assemble a "full image" when the opposite oblique is captured, but remains useful (to a certain point on the horizon--right now about 15 miles at cruising). There's still a vast amount of information we can obtain at higher altitudes including crop yield data, snow pack, reservoir/lake water levels, forest density, etc.
2. The physical device we're prototyping is about the size of a headphone case--I actually used a Bose QC25 headphone case to cast the model! There are a few potential avenues to deploy physical sensing hardware on flights including revenue sharing with airlines, using passengers to deploy, and other partnerships in the general aviation space. The DoD in particular has expressed interest in a purpose-built device for aerial sensing but for now, mobile device crowdsourcing in the commercial markets is the focus.
3. There are huge spots in and around US airspace where planes cannot (or generally do not) fly. Satellites will remain the key players when optimizing for coverage, but the high-frequency revisit I believe is best obtained using aerial imagery. I always like to tell people that's why we're "Not A Satellite" instead of "Anti-Satellite". There's more than enough room for both, and we see a huge opportunity to increase revisit and provide a complementary offering to satellite imagery.
We've looked at revisit frequency against ADS-B data and about 80% of the US sees at least 2 flights within a mile each day, exponentially more so around cities and developed areas. Many of our customers are interested in monitoring sites within 15 miles of a major international airport, so we're able to obtain high-resolution images using mobile devices because aircraft are typically below ~8,000ft within that radius. LAX for example can see as many as 500 takeoffs and landings each day, and there are hundreds of industrial sites (ports, fulfillment warehouses, other infrastructure) within the approach path.
I genuinely appreciate your questions. We're still early-stage and the discussions I've had on HN alone have vastly improved the quality of our pitch, business plan, and exposed major blind spots. Thanks again for the kind words, and I'll be sure to drop you a line!
I saw a U-2 at an airshow (California Capitol Airshow at Mather) and it also looked beat up. I asked about it and they said that it's a working airplane, not some show piece. Basically it just had a lot of hours on it since it was last repainted.
The U2 I saw at Mather was based a Beale (as were the Air Force folks exhibiting it). They said the U2s get rotated in and out of service/training and that this unit had been all over the world.
