Humans are increasingly engaging with wearable technology as it becomes more adaptable and interactive. One of the most intimate ways gaining acceptance is through augmented reality (AR) glasses.

Last week, Meta debuted a prototype of the most recent version of their AR glasses—Orion. They look like reading glasses and use holographic projection to allow users to see graphics projected through transparent lenses into their field of view.

Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg called Orion “the most advanced glasses the world has ever seen.” He said they offer a “glimpse of the future” in which smart glasses will replace smartphones as the main mode of communication.

But is this true or just corporate hype? And will AR glasses actually benefit us in new ways?

Old technology, made new

The technology used to develop Orion glasses is not new.

In the 1960s, computer scientist Ivan Sutherland introduced the first augmented reality head-mounted display. Two decades later, Canadian engineer and inventor Stephen Mann developed the first glasses-like prototype.

Throughout the 1990s, researchers and technology companies developed the capability of this technology through head-worn displays and wearable computing devices. Like many technological developments, these were often initially focused on military and industry applications.

In 2013, after smartphone technology emerged, Google entered the AR glasses market. But consumers were disinterested, citing concerns about privacy, high cost, limited functionality and a lack of a clear purpose.

This did not discourage other companies—such as Microsoft, Apple and Meta—from developing similar technologies.

Looking inside

Meta cites a range of reasons for why Orion are the world’s most advanced glasses, such as their miniaturized technology with large fields of view and holographic displays. It said these displays provide: “compelling AR experiences, creating new human-computer interaction paradigms […] one of the most difficult challenges our industry has ever faced.”

Orion also has an inbuilt smart assistant (Meta AI) to help with tasks through voice commands, eye and hand tracking, and a wristband for swiping, clicking and scrolling.

With these features, it is not difficult to agree that AR glasses are becoming more user-friendly for mass consumption. But gaining widespread consumer acceptance will be challenging.

A set of challenges

Meta will have to address four types of challenges:

1. ease of wearing, using and integrating AR glasses with other glasses
2. physiological aspects such as the heat the glasses generate, comfort and potential vertigo
3. operational factors such as battery life, data security and display quality
4. psychological factors such as social acceptance, trust in privacy and accessibility.

These factors are not unlike what we saw in the 2000s when smartphones gained acceptance. Just like then, there are early adopters who will see more benefits than risks in adopting AR glasses, creating a niche market that will gradually expand.

Similar to what Apple did with the iPhone, Meta will have to build a digital platform and ecosystem around Orion.

This will allow for broader applications in education (for example, virtual classrooms), remote work and enhanced collaboration tools. Already, Orion’s holographic display allows users to overlay digital content and the real world, and because it is hands-free, communication will be more natural.

Creative destruction

Smart glasses are already being used in many industrial settings, such as logistics and health care. Meta plans to launch Orion for the general public in 2027.

By that time, AI will have likely advanced to the point where virtual assistants will be able to see what we see and the physical, virtual and artificial will co-exist. At this point, it is easy to see that the need for bulky smartphones may diminish and that through creative destruction, one industry may replace another.

This is supported by research indicating the virtual and augmented reality headset industry will be worth US$370 billion by 2034.

The remaining question is whether this will actually benefit us.

There is already much debate about the effect of smartphone technology on productivity and well-being. Some argue that it has benefited us, mainly through increased connectivity, access to information, and productivity applications.

But others say it has just created more work, distractions and mental fatigue.

If Meta has its way, AR glasses will solve this by enhancing productivity. Consulting firm Deloitte agrees, saying the technology will provide hands-free access to data, faster communication and collaboration through data-sharing.

It also claims smart glasses will reduce human errors, enable data visualization, and monitor the wearer’s health and well-being. This will ensure a quality experience, social acceptance, and seamless integration with physical processes.

But whether or not that all comes true will depend on how well companies such as Meta address the many challenges associated with AR glasses.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Flooding, including the devastation caused recently by Hurricane Helene, is responsible for $5 billion in annual damages in the U.S. That’s more than any other type of weather-related extreme event.

To address the problem, the federal government instituted a program in 1990 that helps reduce flood insurance costs in communities enacting measures to better handle flooding. If, say, a town preserves open space as a buffer against coastal flooding, or develops better stormwater management, area policy owners get discounts on their premiums. Studies show the program works well: It has reduced overall flood damage in participating communities.

However, a new study led by an MIT researcher shows that the effects of the program differ greatly from place to place. For instance, higher-population communities, which likely have more means to introduce flood defenses, benefit more than smaller communities, to the tune of about $4,000 per insured household.

“When we evaluate it, the effects of the same policy vary widely among different types of communities,” says study co-author Lidia Cano Pecharromán, a Ph.D. candidate in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning.

Referring to climate and environmental justice concerns, she adds, “It’s important to understand not just if a policy is effective, but who is benefitting, so that we can make necessary adjustments and reach all the targets we want to reach.”

The paper, “Exposing Disparities in Flood Adaptation for Equitable Future Interventions in the U.S.,” is published in Nature Communications. The authors are Cano Pecharromán and ChangHoon Hahn, an associate research scholar at Princeton University.

Able to afford help

The program in question was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has a division, the Flood Insurance Mitigation Administration, focusing on this issue. In 1990, FEMA initiated the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System, which incentivizes communities to enact measures that help prevent or reduce flooding.

Communities can engage in a broad set of related activities, including floodplain mapping, preservation of open spaces, stormwater management activities, creating flood warning systems, or even developing public information and participation programs. In exchange, area residents receive a discount on their flood insurance premium rates.

To conduct the study, the researchers examined 2.5 million flood insurance claims filed with FEMA since then. They also examined U.S. Census Bureau data to analyze demographic and economic data about communities, and incorporated flood risk data from the First Street Foundation.

By comparing more than 1,500 communities in the FEMA program, the researchers were able to quantify its different relative effects—depending on community characteristics such as population, race, income or flood risk. For instance, higher-income communities seem better able to make more flood-control and mitigation investments, earning better FEMA ratings and, ultimately, enacting more effective measures.

“You see some positive effects for low-income communities, but as the risks go up, these disappear, while only high-income communities continue seeing these positive effects,” says Cano Pecharromán. “They are likely able to afford measures that handle a higher risk indices for flooding.”

Similarly, the researchers found, communities with higher overall levels of education fare better from the flood-insurance program, with about $2,000 more in savings per individual policy than communities with lower levels of education. One way or another, communities with more assets in the first place—size, wealth, education—are better able to deploy or hire the civic and technical expertise necessary to enact more best practices against flood damage.

And even among lower-income communities in the program, communities with less population diversity see greater effectiveness from their flood program activities, realizing a gain of about $6,000 per household compared to communities where racial and ethnic minorities are predominant.

“These are substantial effects, and we should consider these things when making decisions and reviewing if our climate adaptation policies work,” Cano Pecharromán says.

An even larger number of communities is not in the FEMA program at all. The study identified 14,729 unique U.S. communities with flood issues. Many of those are likely lacking the capacity to engage on flooding issues the way even the lower-ranked communities within the FEMA program have at least taken some action so far.

“If we are able to consider all the communities that are not in the program because they can’t afford to do the basics, we would likely see that the effects are even larger among different communities,” Cano Pecharromán says.

Getting communities started

To make the program more effective for more people, Cano Pecharromán suggests that the federal government should consider how to help communities enact flood-control and mitigation measures in the first place.

“When we set out these kinds of policies, we need to consider how certain types of communities might need help with implementation,” she says.

Methodologically, the researchers arrived at their conclusions using an advanced statistical approach that Hahn, who is an astrophysicist by training, has applied to the study of dark energy and galaxies.

Instead of finding one “average treatment effect” of the FEMA program across all participating communities, they quantified the program’s impact while subdividing the set of participating set of communities according to their characteristics.

“We are able to calculate the causal effect of [the program], not as an average, which can hide these inequalities, but at every given level of the specific characteristics of communities we’re looking at, different levels of income, different levels of education, and more,” Cano Pecharromán says.

Government officials have seen Cano Pecharromán present the preliminary findings at meetings, and expressed interest in the results. Currently, she is also working on a follow-up study, which aims to pinpoint which types of local flood-mitigation programs provide the biggest benefits for local communities.

This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Seattle’s Office of Labor Standards is investigating Amazon Logistics—the company’s vast network of delivery services—for alleged violations of labor laws, including the city’s ordinance requiring paid sick time for gig workers that went into effect this year.

The investigation appears focused on Amazon’s Flex drivers, who operate like gig workers and make deliveries for the company using their own vehicles and on their own schedule.

Amazon sent a letter to its Flex drivers last Friday to notify them of the investigation, according to a copy of the note shared with The Seattle Times.

A spokesperson for the Office of Labor Standards confirmed Tuesday it had recently opened an investigation, adding that it does so “when it has reason to believe that a specific violation occurred or is occurring under Seattle’s labor laws.”

It’s unclear what law, or laws, government officials believe Amazon may have violated. But the spokesperson for the Office of Labor Standards said it opened the investigation under new ordinances put in place to give gig workers more of the same protections that companies offer employees.

That includes the Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance, or PSST, which requires companies provide paid time off for app-based workers to take care of themselves and their families, including for doctor’s visits, school closures or other health and safety reasons.

Those protections were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and later codified into law. The ordinance went into effect in May 2023 for food delivery companies using app-based workers and expanded to include all app-based workers at companies with more than 250 workers in January.

In its note to workers, Amazon said “we remain confident we are in compliance with all laws and regulations, including Seattle PSST, and are committed to transparency and cooperation throughout the process.”

Amazon confirmed to The Times on Wednesday that the Office of Labor Standards is investigating Amazon Logistics to ensure compliance with paid sick and safe time accrual under the PSST ordinance.

Amazon Logistics isn’t the only company feeling the impact of the ordinance.

In August 2023, the Office of Labor Standards found DoorDash violated the ordinance by failing to establish a system for workers to request and use paid time off, provide timely compensation to gig workers for use of that time and give workers monthly notice of their PSST balances. DoorDash paid $1.6 million as a result of the investigation.

In March, Instacart agreed to pay nearly $750,000 to settle allegations it failed to comply with the same ordinance. The Office of Labor Standards accused Instacart of failing to allow drivers who had been deactivated from the platform to use their accrued time off and failing to provide accurate compensation rates when telling workers how much time they had accrued.

The Office of Labor Standards says on its website that most investigations are resolved in a settlement agreement.

2024 The Seattle Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.