1. i couldn't get the "intro" artivive sequence to play, which was kinda a bummer (might be something to do with it being full screen and ui elements in the way)

2. couldn't resist trying the artivive features first, so i skipped the text and discovered the roses were sick

3. mixed quotation marks (" vs ') is grinding my bones

4. double quotation punctuation aaaa

5. this font is f*cking sick, those itallics tho damn

6. the usage of "he" gets kinda confusing, since both parties are men & the short story is told in 3rd person

7. killing off the first character named, which is assumed to be a protagonist, is metal as sh*t

8. if "augmented reality" can change "reality", then they're both reality tho

9. yknw i'm pretty sure artivive can be done in a browser. there's camera api access and tensorflow available. webassembly and all dat too.

10. some sentences are drawn out and gets confusing to read at the end; easy for reader to lose context of what's going on

11. "it is with this knowledge", unfortunately i am not knowledgeable, what is going on

12. i don't think a person can "invent" AR (prolly meant only ARToolkit instead?). it's a concept, and a google search shows that it has been an idea that's been played around for some time (1957)

13. data is plural xd

14. if we're glancing at GPS back AND forth, we're definitely f*cked

15. i don't think "AR technology" is a real thing, at least used in that context. "AR technology" can't project things. AR is merely a concept, projection technology can project things

16. is that f*cking AR candy crush

17. i wonder if i could install ublock in my brain

18. yo that short film was lit

19. eh that's not a picture that's a video, that's like 30*(6*60+33)*1000 words!

20. what does it mean to "collect real time data" and how does it help-

21. oh wait, that second sentence shldve been the 1st

22. you're... right, never realised smart phone shit was visual communication

23. i don't think that is an accurate representation of AR. if you watch a TV series that you're super attached to some characters, and suddenly they get cancelled/removed, issa gonna feel the same

24. not qualified on the topic, but can't that study be also be biased by how humans prefer first picks? it also makes sense for the brain to choose an option that they know is already safe

25. ay yo, this the elec sh*t i talked to mr charles abt

26. what does it mean to seek refuge on the internet

27. okay nvm, that sorta makes sense actually

28. you've proposed an existing situation, without raising a problem, that isn't made clear what the parallel is to AR

29. *addiction

30. *surfing of

31. the points of AR's usage of internet tactics being a lot more effective and therefore damaging, is a great point, but to directly link it to internet addiction without further explanation, is kinda off

32. doesn't integrating AR into environments filled with impressionable children totally contradict the above statements of dependency dangers

33. why talk about that point that defied everything else, just to tell everyone that it defied everything after talking about it

34. AR will get cheaper, like the internet

35. not sure how social identity plays into this

36. this flip flopping is weird, but true-

37. yo dat was a ride---

1. The essay by the victim author; the topic of the review.

2. The counter-review by the hostage author, focused on my own essay.

clarity

1. The article-like layout style is great to read, and the font is amazing (those itallics thoo). The chapters being clearly segmented creates a "readable" gap, which allows proper information separating and different points to be written under one essay umbrella

2. Some info feels crammed together. They're are properly cited, but it feels like that becomes a downfall — trying to fit found info instead of going of base knowledge and finding supporting statements of it. (eg. the argument of attention span for visual communication, the argument of internet addiction for AR dependency dangers, etc). A solution would be to sacrifice some cited information in favour of clarity.

3. Some of the arguments and explanations used in the essay I had trouble understanding the significance of. (eg. The argument of being attached to AR at work — if you'd watch a TV series, and you got attached to those characters, wouldn't taking away those have the same effect as something in AR? The argument of AR being expensive and will create a class divide somehow — the Internet has dropped in price as the years go by, and its position of dependence only set in when the userbase was big enough to facilitate something more than novelty/business). A solution could be more thorough explanations that counters and go throughs some of the more common points of contention.

references

1. Despite some outliers, there are a lot of great references that firmly support the point they're laced on. (eg. EchoPixel's contribution to the medical field proving AR's legitimacy in said field, the correlation between food & its visuals supporting visual communication's power, etc)

2. I found some of the cited sources to be taken too seriously though. One of those include a study by Stanford University, where they examine the effects of an AR person and a set of real people. They end their studies with how more evidence is required, and that can be noted by how bias can be introduced by how humans prefer first picks, and the brain choosing options that they know are already safe. Maybe it would be better to depend more on own "coagulated findings", instead of individual studies, especially for more technological recent topics with lesser concrete information out in the wild.

visuals

1. To use Artivive is a theoretically great idea, but i don't think the app itself is that great of an experience. It requires a full app download and has issues with mis-orientated and minimalistic artwork. In my opinion it is also underutilized as it is only used for the intro sequence, as well as one artwork in the passage. To solve this, I honestly have no clue. The closest alternative i have is using something like "Spark AR" to create Instagram filters that one can use (which are based on a tried-and-tested platform), other than literally learning machine learning and developing a web based version of Artivive using Tensorflow.

2. The rest of the visuals though, definitely elevate the essay, providing great senses of context where needed. This is especially evident with the additional videos that helped tie together some, otherwise only vaguely related, parts of the essay. (the subtle watch material recommendations were nice as well xd)

writing

1. Starting the essay by killing off the presumed protagonist, is metal asf. The story exert acts as a great hook that signifies this piece of text is going to discuss topics not of the light hearted. It also lays down the "gamification" phenomenon that is mentioned in both text and video form down the line.

2. Sentences that go on too long, or sentences that start with assumptions of prior knowledge become a problem sometimes. The common between those two is the loss of context, making it hard to follow along. (eg. Who is "he"? What is the "knowledge" I'm supposed to know? etc). A good helper for this problem is to give context cues in the pointers themselves, eg."the masked/hidden/shadowed person", "it is with the knowledge of how AR can make pancakes for Jake the Dog that...", etc.

3. Reversed, or flip-flopping sentence meanings. A problem might be presented, then a point which counteracts a problem, but then after that an argument that supports the previous problem. A premise might also be provided, then something might interject and leave that hanging. (eg. the talk about the use of AR in education, the talk about the internet's immersive experience/informational sharing/meeting of different personalities, etc). Maybe the author could try to section out parts of the essay, and create an writing outline of them before committing.

info

1. I really like most of the points provided in the essay. The intensity of change AR can make to reality does make its dependency a threat, especially when exploiting that fact can bring rewards which are very great. The privacy argument is also a cruel but crucial one, as dealing with biological data, they're not some thing that we could just randomly change, like a password or a club penguin account.

2. There are parts where it reads like the author isn't particularly knowledgeable in the topic of AR itself. AR was portrayed as a type of technology like smart phones or the internet, while it's more of a concept. It is mentioned that "AR was invented in the 2000s", while AR as a concept has been explored since all the way back in 1957 (merdeka yo). Another thing is how it's said that "AR technology could project holographic arrows", while it's actually projection technology that makes that possible, as well as computation, satellite positioning, gyroscopes, radio waves, etc — technologies that enables AR experience. Not sure what a solution to this would be though, maybe extended project deadlines to enable deeper research?

nit picks

1. It's slightly unpolished (can't fault it though, it's a draft after all). Grammar errors and typos (*data, *addiction, *surfing of), as well as weird oddities, like mixed quote usage (" & ') and random double spaced words. "Grammarly" could be used to catch those.

2. There were also other oddities, like "a picture is worth a thousand words", underneath a video (it was more like 11790000 words then), or if one would be glancing at GPS back AND forth — they would be either very drunk or very lost. Honestly though, I don't think they should be fixed, leaving them there kind of adds charm to the whole piece xd.

what was learnt

1. AR seems like the logical next step towards human & machine interaction. The bottleneck of harnessing the computation prowess of our world is the inefficient bridge between us and them. Unfortunately, it does draw parallels to how once the friction, or barrier to entry, to a service/product is reduce, reliance becomes inevitable. (eg. internet, tap water, electricity, petrol, supermarkets, etc.)

2. The dependence of AR's consequences will be similar to the internet's, but more intense. (eg. the information bombardment, the dopamine exploitation, the increased corporation involvement in daily life, the ability for loss of property due to attackers, etc)

3. Visual communication is very powerful, and smart phones are one of the main evidences. The majority of our data now is consumed via reading/looking/watching, compared to the older generation which relied a ton more on radio/word of mouth/town criers. This is simply because it's a much more efficient way of communicating information and AR will certainly elevate it.

rating

7/10

1. Topic at hand is more real than often is discussed upon. Big companies working on them serves as only evidence of the future.

2. The writing could use some work and sometimes detracts from the otherwise good points brought up.

3. The explanations feels like they were sometimes cut short, and the author doesn't sound too well versed in some part of the subject.

4. The additional visuals and experiences were pleasant when they worked.

1. To use Artivive is a theoretically great idea, but i don't think the app itself is that great of an experience. It requires a full app download and has issues with mis-orientated and minimalistic artwork. In my opinion it is also underutilized as it is only used for the intro sequence, as well as one artwork in the passage. To solve this, I honestly have no clue. The closest alternative i have is using something like "Spark AR" to create Instagram filters that one can use, other than literally learning machine learning and developing a web based version of Artivive using Tensorflow.

2. It still feels slightly unpolished. Grammar errors and typos (*data, *addiction, *surfing of), as well as weird oddities, like mixed quote usage (" & ') and double spaced words. You could use Grammarly to catch those.

3. The writing suffers in some parts of the essay. It's often plagued by sentences that go on too long, or sentences that start with assumptions of prior knowledge. The common between those two is the loss of context, making it hard to follow along. (eg. Who is "he"? What is the "knowledge" I'm supposed to know? etc). A good helper for this problem is to give context cues in the pointers themselves, eg. using "the masked/hidden/shadowed person", "it is with the knowledge of how AR can make pancakes for Jake the Dog that...", etc.

4. Another issue with the writing I noticed is the sometimes revered, or flip-flopping sentence meanings. A problem might be presented, then a point which counteracts a problem, but then after that an argument that supports the previous problem. A premise might also be provided, then something might interject and leave that hanging. (eg. the talk about the use of AR in education, the talk about the internet's immersive experience/informational sharing/meeting of different personalities, etc). Maybe you could try to section out parts of the essay, and create an outline of them before writing.

5. There are parts where info feels crammed together. A lot of it are properly cited, but it feels like that becomes a downfall — trying to fit found info instead of going of base knowledge and finding supporting statements of it. (eg. the argument of attention span for visual communication, the argument of internet addiction for AR dependency dangers, etc). A solution would be to sacrifice some cited information in favour of clarity.

6. It would also seem like there are parts where you aren't particularly knowledgeable in the topic of AR itself. AR was seemed to be portrayed as a general technology like smart phones or the internet, while it's more of a concept. It is mentioned that "AR was invented in the 2000s", while AR as a concept has been explored since all the way back in 1957 (merdeka yo). Another thing is how it's said that "AR technology could project holographic arrows", while it's actually projection technology that makes that possible, as well computation, satellite positioning, gyroscopes, radio wave, etc, technology that enables the AR experience itself. Not sure what a solution to this would be though, maybe extended project deadlines to enable deeper research?

7. Some of the arguments and explanations used in the essay I had trouble understanding the significance of. (eg. The argument of being attached to AR at work — if you'd watch a TV series, and you got attached to those characters, wouldn't taking away those have the same effect as something in AR? The argument of AR being expensive and will create a class divide somehow — the Internet has dropped in price as the years go by, and its position of dependence only set in when the userbase was big enough to facilitate something more than novelty/business). A solution could be more thorough explanations that counters and go throughs some of the more common points of contention.

8. I found some of the cited sources to be taken too seriously as well. One of those include a study by Stanford University, where they examine the effects of an AR person and a set of real people. They end their studies with how more evidence is required, and that can be noted by how bias can be introduced by how humans prefer first picks, and the brain choosing options that they know are already safe. Maybe it would be better to depend more on own "coagulated findings", instead of individual studies, especially for more technological recent topics with lesser concrete information out in the wild.

9. There were also other oddities, like "a picture is worth a thousand words", underneath a video (it was more like 11790000 words then), or if one would be glancing at GPS back AND forth, they would be either very drunk or very lost. Honestly though, I don't think they should be fixed, leaving them there kind of adds charm to the whole piece (serious xd).

10. I really like some of the points provided in the essay though. The intensity of change AR can make to reality does make its dependency a threat, especially when exploiting that fact can bring rewards which are very great (Facebook owns Oculus, Microsoft's developing Hololens, Google already tried with Google Glass). The privacy argument is also a cruel but crucial one, as dealing with biological data, they're not some thing that we could just randomly change, like a password or a club penguin account.

11. Other than that, the article-like layout style is great to read, and the font is amazing (those itallics thoo). The chapters being clearly segmented creates a "readable" gap, which allows proper information separating and different points to be written under one essay umbrella

12. Starting the essay by killing off the presumed protagonist, is also metal asf. The story exert acts as a great hook that signifies this piece of text is going to discuss topics not of the light hearted. It also lays down the "gamification" phenomenon that is mentioned in both text and video form down the line.

13. The visuals (excluding the Artivive shenanigans), were interesting, especially with the additional videos that provide a vibe of the context intended. (the subtle watch material recommendations were nice as well xd)

14. All in all, it was a great read, but definitely some things to work on. I feel like every puzzle piece is there, just minor refactors would take everything to much new heights. If you'd like though, a few suggestions on what else to put would be — a parallel look into AR and the internet's growth, more of your own opinions on AR and how you would avoid/embrace it, & more pikachu GIFs.