Can we maybe blame the people who use them irresponsibly instead of blaming the technology? These glasses have been a life changer for so many visually impaired people.
Sure, we can all agree that crushing puppies is a bad thing, but you should blame the people using the puppy crusher 9000 to crush puppies and not the technology itself. After all, it's made an amazing profit for shareholders!
Sometimes a thing is bad in and of itself. A thing designed specifically and explicitly to do bad things is still bad even if it helps a small number of people.
I don't think that product exists, and I think an ordinary trash compactor would be far more likely to be used instead. Should we blame the people compressing their garbage for all the people crushing puppies?
If there is a repeated, ongoing problem with a lot of people using the devices to crush puppies, the manufacturers would be expected to come up with ways to make this less likely to happen (safety measures etc).
And if that didn’t help, there might be a push to limit access to these machines because clearly a too significant part of the population is unable to use them responsibly.
There isn't such a problem, it is at best an incidental use case that has been blown out of proportion. Such glasses would only be useful for illicit purposes in instances where a person is permitted to look at something, but not to photograph it. In such a case, they can be politely requested to remove the glasses, just the same as you would ask someone pointing a smartphone at you to put it down, even if they were just scrolling instagram. It's a non problem that spiraled into a moral panic.
> These glasses have been a life changer for so many visually impaired people.
That's not why they're making them though; that's just insincere cover. If they were intended to be assistive devices, the marketing would be totally different.
Metas job is to maximize those 1% because that’s where the business value is. Like every other product they’ve done. 17 strikes policy for grooming for the win.
clearly not true. the weights are the preferred form for making modifications. Do you really think people should be downloading hundreds of TB of training data and running make to build the model on their own cluster of GPUs?
Random people? No. Governments and big corporations? Yes. It removes any concern of "backdoors", and is currently the best starting point for your own model which will be as capable as k3.
I tried to get a personal developer account (I'm already a developer through an organisation). The app required a Driver's license as the only accepted ID. I don't drive because I'm blind. They did a screen share and talked me through applying on the web site. It failed. They never gave a reason and ignored me when I asked for one. They just said
"Hello Robert,
Thank you for your patience while I awaited a response from our operations team.
Upon review, we have found that we can’t verify your identity with the Apple Developer app or provide further assistance with the Apple Account for Apple developer programs.
You can still take advantage of great content using your Apple Account in Xcode to develop and test apps on your own device. Learn more about Xcode development.
I do apologise that I was not of more help to you in this situation but wish you the best of luck for the future.
"
They will destroy the developer experience when they add identity and signing.
My driver's license is in a form factor Apple cannot scan. A few months ago, I tried to get it scanned four times (with the UI telling me various versions of "your ID is too blurry" / "there was a technical issue") before Apple just blocked me from applying for the developer program.
Their support gave me the exact same template: "After reviewing your account details, it looks like we can’t verify your identity with the Apple Developer app or provide further assistance with the Apple Account for Apple developer programs."
I was only unblocked recently (surprisingly -- I thought I was banned forever), and so I decided to try applying with passport instead. That got further, as instead of saying my ID image was blurry, it said "ID Verification Rejected".
I am in contact with developer support right now and they told me that one of my devices or phone numbers was registered with another developer account, but they haven't told me which one (only to "remove phone numbers and devices that you don’t own" -- which isn't applicable as I own all of them).
They're taking 4+ days to reply each time though, which is super frustrating.
Yes, of course, it seems that type of ID was specifically rejected in the story above. Only drivers allowed to sign up. Non-drivers rejected because they don’t drive.
Yes, I have a passport which is accepted by every other company I have had to verify id with. Apple doesn't offer it as an option for UK accounts for some reason.
I agree, but I just created anew Apple id, and got a developer subscription straight away on the web without it asking for id. I suppose they will probably require id if I submit to the app store, but the fact that I already paid should carry more weight I hope.
It can trigger it's self, when it decides it needs to try lots of different options to get clicks into an installer running as admin. There's basically nothing you can do to prevent it.
I didn't know this. Looks like I dodged a bullet - being totally blind meant the chance of issues was high but luckily it worked. It triggered the id check while trying to get computer use to work for an installer running as admin on windows. Actual reverse engineering I got it to do in the past didn't trigger it.
Apple could simply be ordered to include a hardware backdoor, and legally be prevented from talking about it. Everything else in the architecture could work exactly the way they claim in the PCC paper.
