A common investigation thing (used a lot in the other good recent High Potential series) is to unlock dead peoples phones by facial identification. Am I the only one who doesn’t use this, found it problematic, and not particularly secure? Handy plot device for an otherwise dead end…
No, I don’t even use thumbprint on my phone. I use keypad to unlock. But I was born paranoid. (In Haldeman’s “All My Sins Remembered” the main character was considering breaking into a thumbprint-secured safe, and wondering how to get the fingerprint. “We only need the man’s thumb!”)
And, to deal with a “technique” that Sherlock uses a lot in Elementary, you can’t look at a screen and tell which smudges correspond to the key unlock, and which are just smudges. I know my code, and I can’t tell from smudges.
“Try inverse phasing!”
The one that bugs me is gee-whiz display technology that makes no sense. For example, in the Hunger Games movies, people watch President Snow issue his statements on a display using an image projected onto a vapor mist. Why would anyone want such a display? I mean, it kinda looks cool, but the resolution is going to be pretty weak and if there’s even a slight breeze in the room, your image is going to be blown around. I seems like a waste of energy to create an intentionally inferior image.
Then there’s the futuristic transparent display. Sometimes, these are physical displays on some sort of screen which can be seen from both sides. Other times, the image is somehow projected into open space in front of the user. Again, why would anyone want this? First, privacy was mentioned above by another poster. Everyone in the office can see what you’re working on. But, to me, the worst problem with this is that the user sees everything going on behind the display. This would make a terribly distracting way to watch any sort of display.
It depends on the phone, actually - apparently a majority of iPhone users (in the US) do use it. Android users, not so much.
61% of Apple users relied on Face ID’s face unlock technology, compared to only 4% of Android users reliant on Android’s version of face unlock
Mr. Scott, there was no deity involved. It was my cross-circuiting to B that recovered them.
Ah, I see. sorry to be a little OT, perhaps it is a valid tech thing, just a perchance for (what I IMHO unkindly refer to as the as the idiots phones)/apple users use it.
I blame the “wonder” of Princess Leia in 3D in 1977 for the weird displays people strive to make to predict the future. But then again, there’s steampunk, so doesn’t have to be the future.
Probably helped a lot, but 3-D displays in science fiction movies go back further than that. There were a couple of them in the 1975 film Logan’s Run. And, of course, there was the display of the miniature Altaira in 1856 Forbidden Planet
I didn’t realize there was a zoetrope edition
The first time I saw Minority Report, I thought, “That’s a heck of a lot of motion and physical effort just to select and move things on a display.” I’m a Luddite who still uses a mouse with my laptop, even when I’m siting on the couch. I can’t imagine waving my hands around in the air and shoving virtual objects to the side with huge sweeps of both hands.
I’m old enough to have seen the initial push of video conferencing, and when it largely flopped it became a common meme / example of tech fiction getting it wrong. “Here in the real world, people don’t need to see other people’s faces and invade their privacy”
(Yes some of the issue was the tech was flaky at the time, which is a valid complaint. But I can remember plenty of articles just claiming conceptually it was a bad idea)
So when it comes to tactile, transparent and 3D interfaces and the like, I keep an open mind because fashions can change.
The Jetsons pointed out a problem with video calls in the 1960s. The screen announces an incoming call from a friend of Mrs. Jetson, who hasn’t put on her makeup or done her hair. So she picks up a mask with her face on it and holds it up to take the call.
This was probably shortly after video calls were demonstrated at the 1964-65 World’s Fair in New York.
And The Simpsons did it decades later in an episode set in the then-future year 2010, where Marge makes a white lie during a video call and Lisa reminds her she can see her crossing her fingers.
The mask was a cute workaround. And I know they were trying to be funny, but it’s interesting the writers didn’t envision an “off” switch for the camera, or physically blocking the camera. (It’s also interesting to me that most women still put on makeup and do their hair before engaging with the outside world, some 60 years after that show aired.)
And even though we have video calling capability on our cell phones, I virtually never use the video feature. All my calls are voice only. Video calls are generally just too awkward.
As for virtual meetings, if I’m meeting someone for the first time over video, or if I don’t know them well, I will make sure that I’m groomed and wearing a nice shirt and turn my camera on. But after that, my camera is generally off for virtual meetings, especially at work.
(One positive development of the pandemic was switching from in-person meetings to virtual meetings at my work. We now use these for 90% of our meetings. They are much more efficient.)
That would have been difficult since The Jetsons was produced from 1962-63. 
“PC LOAD LETTER, what the fuck does that mean?”
Oh no, wait, thats one thing about computers that hollywood got exactly right.
The 1964 World’s Fair was not the first time video phones were demonstrated. Wikipedia describes earlier attempts at the technology in prior decades, so the idea was certainly known.
Didn’t the Jetsons have a time machine?
Good point!
And that line wasn’t even in the script! The actor ad libbed it when the printer unexpectedly ran out of paper in the middle of filming the scene and displayed that error message.