It’s blatant anti-competitive behavior and anybody who cares about antitrust should be outraged about this and similar efforts. Getting legal protection for such decisions is nothing but regulatory capture.

The largest differentiator to other devices by Apple really is the always-on cameras and the idea that you can/should use the device with always-on cameras in public. Otherwise Meta/Oculus have already done just as much as Apple has done here. Apple’s entry into the market just heats up the discussion around the “Metaverse” again.

I work in the space myself and wearing a VIO system on your head can really give you a lot of health and personality information. The device sees your iris and can identify you. It can analyze your gait and with some “AI magic” even notice and detect movements of your extremities outside the visual field of its cameras.

Devices like these can also be helpful in the medical space though: Not just for diagnosing diseases in the brain or of the eyes, but also help with therapy of patients by augmenting reality with virtual content that can help. One classic one is Parkinson’s patients who can walk again normally with some virtual visual guides on the floor.

Clearly that’s not the main goal of Apple, and obviously not of Meta, but it’s not all bad if used correctly. A privacy first approach is definitely necessary. And it’s not completely true that M$ doesn’t give a damn. With their Hololens they did for instance introduce a privacy preserving mapping and localization system. Nevertheless Apple has a good privacy track record compared to other tech companies.

With the amount of verbiage and ex-employees they’ve taken over from Magic Leap it’s not far fetched they were looking into a see-through device as you describe.

For sure. I wonder if it’s even worth it or just look creepy to look at a pair of two eyes deep in the uncanny valley.

It’s half a kilo strapped to the front of your head. There’s lighter products out there right now that can do similar things. I don’t see this first iteration as anything revolutionary.

Definitely not a fad. It’s used all over the industry. It gives you a lot more control over the environment where your hosted apps run. There may be some overhead, but it’s worth it.

News too. They even need to start funding local newspapers so there is enough content to link to.

Back when I was new to Linux, NVidia cards were not well supported. Any upgrade could break X11, every reboot a gamble. Sometimes I would have to change a config (trying to get X forwarding working etc.) and then not backing up the last three working configs would result in just nuking the install and hoping that resolves it.

Sure, it’s IT teams that don’t want to support it. I’m lucky enough that our IT supports all major OSs and so we can more or less choose. Most tools certain jobs require however do dictate the OS. For SW development Linux is absolutely feasible.

The coming replaceable battery will be another big step towards repairability.

It’s gotta be this one. Marketing works partially with the subconscious and association. They want you to get a fuzzy feeling when you see their logo or a product of theirs in a (web) store. If you don’t get a fuzzy feeling, but you are reminded of the vile fascist shit you read while you saw their ad, you will avoid buying their product, even if you can’t quite put the finger on it.

Practically you would have to separate model architecture from weights. Weights are licensed as research use only, while the architecture is the actual scientific contribution. Maybe some instructions on best train the model.

Only problem is that you can’t really prove if someone just retrained research weights or trained from scratch using randomized weights. Also certain alterations to the architecture are possible, so only the “headless” models are used.

I think there’s some research into detecting retraining, but I can imagine it’s not fool proof.

Rights for everyone when there’s a boom, cracking down on rights when the cake stops growing.

“Fight terror” has only really be an excuse since 9/11. Before they had others including protecting children. Only the anti-trans stuff is newish.

Metaverse came first to replace the crypto hype, but yeah, LLMs definitely gave the crypto hype the rest.

I mean, you’d have to guess it and that’s the hard part, but if you can, you can probably also guess the hash of all other apartments. Unless they add some random string into the hashable info, you can guess your own hash with your own apartment info (every apartment has a house ID and apartment ID etc.).

Would be a funny weekend project to see if we could get anywhere with it. He could turn down the heat from his neighbors.

Buddy of mine moved into a new apartment and they have a couple of “smart features”: Temp, blinds, lights. No cameras (except the front door) or other fancy stuff.

However the apartment can be reached from any browser with a hash. So if you know the hash, you can easily access his apartment controls. Not password, 2FA or anything necessary to identify him.

When he told me I was looking at him with wide eyes and he just laughed and said “Yeah, I know.”.

tbh, I doubt they would federate with anyone they don’t have at least some control over. Like a contract or terms agreement or something.

A majority of Americans are over 50, so that’s no surprise, but so many under 50 and 35 too? That’s a surprise. Then why is the public so captivated by it? You don’t need to use it for most things.

Completely agreed. I rarely or never use block features on any of my platforms that provide one (please Spotify, give me the ability to block songs already), but it’s just obvious that there should be a tool for users to protect themselves from other users abusing the platform. Especially on a platform that responds to user requests with the poop emoji, you can’t rely on the platform alone to police such abuses. And even if it isn’t for abuses, everyone should be able to create their own bubble over the one that is already enforced by the platform.