Very well written both in prose and tone. I'm glad she decided to tell this story. If the author isn't a professional writer I think she could be.

This is a great "behind the scenes" style look at the actual people behind a viral clip. Luckily they have an extremely strong relationship to help soften the blows here, I'm not sure an average (not even bad!) relationship could come out of something like this unscathed.

There's something feral in us that comes out from time to time, especially online from the safety of our screens. I found the announcers within the range of good fun but when it gets to people reaching out to break up their marriage or telling him to kill himself it becomes really sobering.

I think this is part of what people are calling the lonlieness epidemic - despite thousands of screaming voices the whole thing makes me feel hollow and hopeless.

Love the story, but isnt this LLM?

" I understand how it looked on television. But we could hear each other. The announcers and audience couldn’t.

There is something else the world doesn’t know. "

Most of this screams LLMisms. Which is totally understandable from someone who isnt a writer and is just trying to get their story heard. But the prose is formulaic and kind of bad, as all LLM prose is.

(Quite surpised the husband wasnt described as load bearing)

Everything is LLM if you want it to be

Some of us have internalized it! It's like walking around in the twilight zone or the bodysnatchers movie sometimes. In a dream society we could agree on some values and argue about how to direct our shared efforts. In this one we can't agree on values or even facts. It's equal parts maddening and terrifying.

We need help in avoiding the worst futures that could come from this.

That must have been a crazy moment for you when you first saw it and a big sigh moment for whomever had to explain it to you the first time. Thanks for sharing this; it made me smile!

I would have agreed a few months ago before opus 5 but I'm back to plan mode and lots of the old tricks trying to get that insolent model to follow instructions. 5.5 so far is better but certainly doesn't feel under my control (had it go off and read other repos and make changes just yesterday while in "plan mode").

Getting out of a toxic job while failing up. Business can be strange sometimes.

What makes it hard, these days?

I did plenty of WP back in the day and I agree, historically, but each of the strong answers I had in my mind (db integration, editor, plugins, themes) are weakened substantially by the AI agents' ability to port a working site to a new framework. I totally agree for normal users still but for devs taking jobs on this do you think the barriers to switching have come down in size?

its getting buy-in, especially from people entrenched in their workflows, convincing management and sometimes legal depending on what plugins are being used.

And then declared the other side a supply chain risk, claiming it is a potential vector for a national adversary to break in and cause unwanted bad things to happen unrelated to this contract.

It seems like absurdly bad faith starting at breaking the contract (over "you have to follow the law", no less!) and then to retaliate after that with trying to destroy the company's reputation and ability to do business. The boot licking going on here justifying the government operating in bad faith is both disappointing and short sighted. I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!

And then another company got the contract, claiming they got all the conditions (and more!) that the original contractor was sour about.

I don't know how anyone can look at the situation and see anything but an abuse of power. The government could have just as easily contacted with another provider. This whole thing is vindictive

This is technically correct but also giving "guns don't kill people; people kill people" vibes from that NRA marketing/propaganda campaign.

Right but the debate here is about “my gun is good and your gun is bad” rather than the right of anybody to have gun.

Cameras exist. This is a camera. All cameras have the same problems this one. So why are we debating about this camera vs that camera rather than whether cameras should be allowed.

> All cameras have the same problems this one.

My perfectly normal camera does not stream shit to Meta servers or any other cloud. It's in fact fully offline. So, no.

Recording is one thing and sharing the same recording with a hostile foreign entity another.

Legally, many places have strict ban on publishing photos/recordings without consent, while photographing itself is generally allowed in public spaces.

This is before even getting into with issues of recordes d material being used as training material etc, which adds additional ethical and legal issues.

Across most of the world it's pretty difficult to walk around a high traffic area without coming across someone using a smartphone to record their surroundings for FB Live or Instagram, and it's been that way since long before anyone had Meta glasses.

Yours might not, but what other people choose to do with their recordings is out of your control.

You may have a specific issue with the fact that the media goes through meta’s services, but that’s not the point that is being made in this thread.

All of the ethical and legal issues apply to all other cameras and camera footage too.

When you hold up a camera to record me, I can clearly tell that you are recording me.

It is socially and in many cases legally forbidden to use cameras in many spaces.

The fact that the use of a camera is obvious is what makes it possible to sanction their inappropriate uses. With this piece of shit, it's not possible to tell at a glance that it is not being used, so we have to always assume that it's recording feature is being used.

The default usecase for it is socially and legally transgressive. That's what makes someone with a smartphone a normal person, while someone with these glasses an asshole.

---

If I'm in a store or a coffee shop, and there's someone wearing these glasses in it, I'll do the exact same thing as I would to someone conspicuously filming me with a camera - I'll ask staff to make that person put them away, or throw them out. For the same reason, anyone with them is not welcome in my home, nor any other space I have control over, and any establishment that welcomes people wearing them will not get any business from me.

The premise here is that if someone wants to secretly record you, that it’s not possible or easy with a smartphone or some other kind of easily acquired camera. This unfortunately is completely wrong.

If someone is motivated to secretly or inappropriately film, they will do so with whatever device they have. Having these glasses doesn’t tell you anything more about whether they’re that kind of person than the colour of their shirt.

Whether you will notice is entirely context and situation dependent. In some cases the glasses would be hard to notice, in others the use of a phone would be hard to notice.

So while your perspective that people who want to secretly film stuff should be unwelcome is quite reasonable, the test you apply to detect it is misdirected.

This feels like an incomplete statement. Waymo makes decisions locally and also escalates to humans, often. Humans making decisions at intersections or important route moments or unexpected scenarios is probably the right move for a long time, in my opinion. The moment by moment decisions are onboard as they have to be but it isn't "wayno doesn't do this".

IIRC the car typically asks yes/no questions, but comes to a safe stop on its own first. In some cases they might draw an escape route for it on a map.