InvertedRhodium

Honestly, as the expectations change I don't see you really have a choice unless you're in the top 1% of engineers and can essentially dictate your terms. Even then I'd say the clock is running out.

At some point (we might already be there) someone insisting on doing everything manually will be seen like a carpenter who does traditional joinery. They might exist, but they're never going to be a significant percentage of the market compared to 4 guys with nail guns knocking walls together in hours.

Because for the vast majority of cases, "good enough" is good enough.

Do you have an example of something that a nation did solely for the good of mankind with no vested interest in the outcome?

> It took a while for the DMCA to happen after Napster.

By the time they came for Napster technology had already moved on. I can still download entire albums and movies in minutes 2 decades later. Heck, Usenet is still a bastion of piracy and that's been around for 46 years.

What’s to stop people from ignoring these altogether and continuing their own work?

“Dumping unverified results” seems to imply that those results come with an obligation of some kind.

Do we though, really? Because every single piece of technology that's been slowly eroding adults privacy is doing the same to children.

My argument isn't that we should let "the wrong people" setup their own camera, or strap cameras to their face and walk around, or whatever the next thing is to come along and record people with impunity.

My argument is that, if you want to solve a problem then address the actual problem. In this context, there's no way to know whether someone is a creep before they act on their creep-like nature, so the safest things to do for children is ban recording of all under 18's in public as a strict criminal offense. Security cameras, mobile phones, glasses, implants, whatever.

Today, the suggestion is wildly unthinkable as a complete overreaction, but in the 1990's there was a brief moment where that could have actually been the outcome, at least outside of the USA. I suspect if people knew then what it would look like today - even disregarding smart glasses altogether - that the opposition would have been stronger.

I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.

Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.

One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.

Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.

People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.

Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.

Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.

I 100% agree with this outlook. People that have ignored encroaching surveillance for decades at this point are finally concerned once we start suggesting we literally strap them to the face of a sizeable chunk of the population.

Personally, I gave up years ago. People don't care about actual privacy, they just care about the illusion of it.

It’s a local craft fair. By every reasonable definition of the word, it’s not serious.

Do you offer to pay them in exposure? Or do you offer them actually money commensurate with the work and skill they provide?

Because if it’s the latter we’re back to money being the barrier. And if it’s the former you should go and check with your local artists how much they love working for exposure.

> Can anyone offer any advice or experiences on talking people out of trying to prematurely squeeze out every last penny?

Yes. Lend them many more pennies, removing the necessity for short-term profit taking and allowing them to run at a loss until they decimate the competition, capture the market and then start raising prices to the point that they are more profitable than had they taken the short-sighted approach.

How large and pixel dense does a display need to be for it to convincingly fill an image sensor?

I suspect it’s significantly less than millions.

I do this, but increasingly modern TVs complain about not being connected to the internet in general. Usually once every day or two I get a pop up on my Samsung 90F complaining that network access of required for some feature that seems to run on a timer.

It differs based on when you purchased the car and package. I have “Advanced Autopilot” (which is no longer for sale in my market) that does not stop for stop signs or traffic lights.

Earlier this year they stopped selling Autopilot altogether in the US and Canada.

Too much variation to make a call on whether their version sips have been stopping under these conditions.