4 ms·

I also appreciate when designers recognize “this is the kind of thing where a 95% hit rate is fine.”

preinheimer 2y ago
I think there’s also the whole “the people with the wrist bands -want- them to work” part. Which is super helpful. Yes, you could hide your band under your hand, now it’s not glowing like everyone else’s… congrats you feel left out.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
And it isn't secure, but, it doesn't have to be. In theory someone can bring a high strength IR beamer thingy to an arena and draw penises or offensive texts on people's bracelets, but that's a manageable risk. Protecting against that would make the devices much more expensive. I mean the components in this one are a few bucks at most, right?
- xg15 2y ago
  Yeah. My first thought was "have fun smuggling any kind of bulky electrical equipment into a Taylor Swift concert, let alone a stage light. Security will not even be mad." But on second thought, I think there might be an actual scenario to worry about: Activists hijacking the system to show political messages. For that they'd "only" have to beam the IR to a small spot of the room (but with much higher "resolution" than the normal effects). As long as the symbol/text/whatever is still legible enough that people recognize it and can take pictures of it, they'd have achieved their objective. Something like this might be possible with a much weaker, purpose-built emitter that could be hidden under clothing. Too much risk and effort for some dumb dick joke, but thinkable if people have some kind of political motivation. As a "bonus", the first blame would probably fall on the unfortunate people whose wristbands lighted up with the message, while the real perpetrators - the ones with the emitter - remained hidden. There is an easy fix as well though: As the system "paints" with digital signals and not light, the old lighting rule that colors mix only additively doesn't hold anymore - so you could add a "don't light up for the next 10 seconds" command to the wristbands and just have the stage beam that command continously whenever no effect is wanted.
  - antris 2y ago
    > But on second thought, I think there might be an actual scenario to worry about: Activists hijacking the system to show political messages. Oh, the horror
    - gunsle 2y ago
      People are paying their own money to see these shows, protesting by ruining that experience is just going to piss people off and hurt your cause.
      - pests 2y ago
        They must feel the pain for them to care.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
        And probably get your ass kicked if they can tell it's you doing it.
    - Waterluvian 2y ago
      There's something ironic about activists behaving like they somehow have the right to just be in people's way. As if the ends justify the means.
      - ada1981 2y ago
        Rosa Parks, Henry David Thoreau and MLK disagree.
        freedomben 2y ago
        Seriously asking: did those three go around to existing events and hijack them? e.g. Did they jump on stage and grab the microphones, or did they block traffic so nobody could get through? Or did they threaten people with violence for passing through having contrary opinions? My understanding after reading "King" by Jonathan Eig (a fantastic biography btw, highly recommend to everyone) is that they didn't do that kind of stuff. They marched alongside traffic and were so non-violent that they allowed themselves to be hit with dogs and high-pressure water hoses without responding. Rosa Parks especially was not like most "activists" today. She clamly and peacefully kept her seat on the bus. Maybe the former Google employee activists who refused to leave the conference room would be similar here, though there are of course differences. I consider myself an activist, and I believe strongly that people need to help raise awareness because there is far too much ignorance and apathy out there, but I agree with GP and siblings that many of the activists today are harming their own cause by being obnoxious. Raising awareness in an empathetic way is the right way to do it, not trying to bully people into agreeing.

I think there’s also the whole “the people with the wrist bands -want- them to work” part. Which is super helpful. Yes, you could hide your band under your hand, now it’s not glowing like everyone else’s… congrats you feel left out.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

And it isn't secure, but, it doesn't have to be. In theory someone can bring a high strength IR beamer thingy to an arena and draw penises or offensive texts on people's bracelets, but that's a manageable risk. Protecting against that would make the devices much more expensive. I mean the components in this one are a few bucks at most, right?

xg15 2y ago
Yeah. My first thought was "have fun smuggling any kind of bulky electrical equipment into a Taylor Swift concert, let alone a stage light. Security will not even be mad." But on second thought, I think there might be an actual scenario to worry about: Activists hijacking the system to show political messages. For that they'd "only" have to beam the IR to a small spot of the room (but with much higher "resolution" than the normal effects). As long as the symbol/text/whatever is still legible enough that people recognize it and can take pictures of it, they'd have achieved their objective. Something like this might be possible with a much weaker, purpose-built emitter that could be hidden under clothing. Too much risk and effort for some dumb dick joke, but thinkable if people have some kind of political motivation. As a "bonus", the first blame would probably fall on the unfortunate people whose wristbands lighted up with the message, while the real perpetrators - the ones with the emitter - remained hidden. There is an easy fix as well though: As the system "paints" with digital signals and not light, the old lighting rule that colors mix only additively doesn't hold anymore - so you could add a "don't light up for the next 10 seconds" command to the wristbands and just have the stage beam that command continously whenever no effect is wanted.
- antris 2y ago
  > But on second thought, I think there might be an actual scenario to worry about: Activists hijacking the system to show political messages. Oh, the horror
  - gunsle 2y ago
    People are paying their own money to see these shows, protesting by ruining that experience is just going to piss people off and hurt your cause.
    - pests 2y ago
      They must feel the pain for them to care.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
      And probably get your ass kicked if they can tell it's you doing it.
  - Waterluvian 2y ago
    There's something ironic about activists behaving like they somehow have the right to just be in people's way. As if the ends justify the means.
    - ada1981 2y ago
      Rosa Parks, Henry David Thoreau and MLK disagree.
      - freedomben 2y ago
        Seriously asking: did those three go around to existing events and hijack them? e.g. Did they jump on stage and grab the microphones, or did they block traffic so nobody could get through? Or did they threaten people with violence for passing through having contrary opinions? My understanding after reading "King" by Jonathan Eig (a fantastic biography btw, highly recommend to everyone) is that they didn't do that kind of stuff. They marched alongside traffic and were so non-violent that they allowed themselves to be hit with dogs and high-pressure water hoses without responding. Rosa Parks especially was not like most "activists" today. She clamly and peacefully kept her seat on the bus. Maybe the former Google employee activists who refused to leave the conference room would be similar here, though there are of course differences. I consider myself an activist, and I believe strongly that people need to help raise awareness because there is far too much ignorance and apathy out there, but I agree with GP and siblings that many of the activists today are harming their own cause by being obnoxious. Raising awareness in an empathetic way is the right way to do it, not trying to bully people into agreeing.