Very big LLMs can still be useful even when you run them only at the speed of around 1 token per second that can be reached with almost any mini-PC or laptop with the weights streamed from SSDs.
While at that speed they will not be your main LLM, there are tasks that are still useful even when requiring many hours, e.g. an overnight run, for instance for checking what has been produced after many interactive iterations of a fast but small model.
It's intentionally a camera that doesn't need to be held and it matches the the POV of the wearer. Where has Meta said it's intentionally designed to be hidden?
People who don't know these "Meta glasses" exist (and they shouldn't need to), would have no idea that the thing is even capable of recording.
It's subterfuge and while you could argue that this subterfuge was "unintentional", but imho that's mincing words, and also given that it's Meta, not entirely in good faith.
Can I assume that you have good enough eye sight that you don't need to wear glasses if you choose to? Because as somebody who is absolutely dependent on glasses as a serious aid, it leaves a very bad taste they are literally hiding the recording device in a disability aid.
I first needed glasses in 4th grade. There hasn't been much time I can remember in my life where I haven't required them to function normally. Save for like, walking to the bathroom in the middle of the night.
I don't think making them glasses is "gross". It seems like a natural evolution of cameras to me. Even before Google Glass they were thrown around as an idea in scifi for decades. It's cool to me, but I understand public opinion isn't with me, and I'm fine with that.
Does Meta have a reputation about being honest about what it's doing? This is the company that just lost a $17 billion lawsuit for endangering children.
Asking genuinely: what are you saying? Do they intend to use the cameras for evil, and the physical form enables them beyond how they are currently enabled by iPhones and non-iPhones now?
I am asking if Meta intends to do so. And to the new question you've added, I guess my question back is "why not just ban cameras from smartphones if they can be equally used for evil"?
It's already possible for people to surreptitiously record/snap on their phones in their hands today, because walking around with your phone in your hand is common. What additional evils are the glasses enabling, if your stance is that they are evil? Or why aren't phone cameras evil?
Just looking for a consistent principle here. First it was "Meta is evil" and then you switched to "the public is evil and Meta is enabling them with clear intention". If the second is true, then you must have clear stances on the current popular technology that everyone owns already.
But then, some people specialize in taking photos that others would not because they have in mind stock photos, art or something else. They see the world differently.
The history of Chrome and Safari traces back to KTML, the renderer for Konqueror, a niche browser on Linux with so little market share there weren't real conversations about it ever seriously competing with Firefox or IE.
Then something unexpected happened: Apple adopted KHTML for Safari's WebKit. WebKit was then adopted as the render for Chrome
Could a niche browser still become mainstream /today/? I think so.
The complexity of web standards isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of the "complexity" (as usually judged by the raw size of the spec) is just existing APIs evolving to be more rigorously defined. Before that level of specificity, browser implementations varied and engineers had to make certain decisions.
A more "complex" spec can sometimes make the job of the engineer simpler.
That's not the kind of complexity that is the problem though. The complexity you have to deal with is just more and more features being shoved into the spec at breakneck speed, or if they are not in the spec, it's just Google adding them to their engine and everyone starts using them anyway to the quasi-monopoly of Chromium-based browsers.
Are they? I feel like the real difference is an insistence on actually enforcing them. There were some really strong standards at the time of IE5, it was just the wild west in terms of what got built. And then you had Tantek Çelik quietly building all of them in IE5 on the Mac. Just a question of where to look.
May just be me being a romantic. Work shut off access to non-Chrome browsers an took away Incognito Mode. Which is fun for QA work.
A distro should be secure-by-default. Omarchy’s design here was insecure by default while the docs have the impression that Docker might be running rootless. Pairing insecure defaults with docs that claim better security is bad.
reply