escobar

8 ms·

31.
by escobar 11y ago
> I have just endured one of the largest trolling attacks in history. I feel bad for Ellen and have nothing against her, I don't really go on reddit much. I am aware that she was more or less a scapegoat. But still, for some reason,
32.
by escobar 11y ago
Nope, not missing anything. There are 2 beams (IR) per one of their "sensors", and it's assumed they're determining direction by noting which beam fires first vs second.
33.
by escobar 11y ago
So you use 2 different IR sensors, which "measure your circumference to some degree" and provide a "distance profile" which somehow translates into real-time accurate foot traffic counts. IMO that's definitely a c
34.
by escobar 11y ago
There's not much actual information available (this should be concerning), but there have been some clues dropped into past HN threads. This is a picture posted in another HN thread of their "original sensor" which is just 2
35.
by escobar 11y ago
Yeah, I find that claim particularly amusing since they're just using a single PIR sensor, which is far less accurate than any camera based system. There's no way that you can claim a single PIR beam is as accurate as a camera b
36.
by escobar 11y ago
This would be a reallly cool application if PIR's were capable of counting "horde" foot traffic, like a giant mass of people streaming out of a door during an alarm. I don't think that something like a PIR could handle t
37.
by escobar 11y ago
I also find this particularly confusing/misleading - since you deal mainly with physical locations (often called sites by owners), using the word "site" instead of "web traffic" seems odd. Also, listing a web based