Unfortunately, the Meta glasses look much more normal, and a person who isn't actively looking for them (and especially one who is unaware of them) isn't likely to notice them.
Not perfect, but better than nothing I guess. I don't think I've noticed the glasses IRL anywhere, but if I start seeing them, I'm definitely installing the app and avoiding any interactions with those people.
The Wayfarer style was always bulky, they have been a fashion staple for decades at this point. The Meta gen2 ones aren't really that noticeably larger than "normal" Wayfarers - probably why they latched on this style as it gives the most room to stuff electronics while remaining similar sized to the original Wayfarer design.
I still see folks wearing Wayfarers almost every single day, and have owned various (non-Meta) pairs of them for most of my adult life. It's literally one of the most popular sunglasses designs of all time.
Meta have a minority stake in Ray Ban and Oakley's parent company, EssilorLuxottica. The investment was largely to support development of future AI glasses. It does make me a little sad to see Wayfarers end up this way too.
A family member has one and I didn't notice until they had to charge their pair. The little circles are subtle giveaways otherwise they look like regular pair of glasses. When everything is always on, I'd like to keep my house "off" and those things are a direct violation of that.
If you know what to look for, yes. But the average person doesn't browse Hacker News and watch tech YT videos in their free time and has likely not even heard of them.
While this will backup all the media files, the chats themselves are encrypted and the key to decrypt them is not included with that backup. The key is in the data partition which you will not be able to access without rooting your phone.
It's likely possible to extract model weights from the chip's design, but you'd need tooling at the level of an Intel R&D lab, not something any hobbyist could afford.
I doubt anyone would have the skills, wallet, and tools to RE one of these and extract model weights to run them on other hardware. Maybe state actors like the Chinese government or similar could pull that off.
I wouldn't call that size a small power bank. That chip is in the same ballpark as gaming GPUs, and based on the VRMs in the picture it probably draws about as much power.
But as you said, the next generations are very likely to shrink (especially with them saying they want to do top of the line models in 2 generations), and with architecture improvements it could probably get much smaller.
Top of the line models will need more weights and more transistors, so the shrinking factors will be competing with growing factors, I'd expect them to keep maxing out the ASIC sizes to whatever is economically feasible.
Maybe they're numbering the models based on internal architecture/codebase revisions and Sonnet 4.6 was trained using the 4.6 tooling, which didn't change enough to warrant 5?
I do wonder why Apple chooses not to lock down the Mac to just Mac OS like all their other hardware? I'm sure the sales from people who intend to run something other than MacOS look like a floating-point error on the scales Apple operates.
You replied to your own question. Locking down the system for 3 users worldwide and making sure it stays locked is not worth the effort.
Just not publishing the specs is enough to delay so much the effort that those machines are out of warranty and have depreciated so much by the time they are supported that they aren't competitors to the mac ecosystem anymore.
I don't think it is possible to have a locked down development machine. You have to be able to run arbitrary code on a development machine so they can never lock it down like iOS is.
There are plenty of other ways they can be less open and hackable than Linux but it can never get to the point of the iPhone.
That’s a reasonable take. The never part seems strong though.
If I may offer a slight consideration? “arbitrary code vs arbitrary signed code”.
What’s realistically stopping Apple from requiring all code and processes be signed? Including on device dev code with a trust chain going back to Apple and TPU / Secure Enclave enforcement
They don't because it's a floating-point error now. But with the continued enshitification of MacOS, it likely won't be in the future, and they just may lock it down. But being so hostile to the hacking community would do more harm than good, so I doubt that they would do so even if Linux use on Macs grew to >1%.
I've found that doing this on laptops is often more problematic, the OS itself will usually boot fine, but you might have issues with drivers for supporting hardware like the GPU, audio, etc.
reply