I am a bit confused by Figure 3. Do they really have a surveillance camera angled just right to capture a photo of someone between the monitor and the wall that supports it?
OpenAI added a camera behind the TV after they found the bug (per the AP story [1]):
The company subsequently added a camera to the room that last week captured Alfozan entering and checking behind the television where the recording device was installed, according to the FBI.
Evidently it was an ESP32 with a wifi antenna. So it could instead/also have streamed to server. Or just used wifi for C+C. Total outlay for information worth millions to someone? Under $20.
That photo is from October 5th so several days after they found the device. They were guessing he might return most likely, and installed a camera. I think at this moment he realized they caught on. Crazy image
That's the accused speaking out loud after clearly noticing the newly installed spy camera: "Good god! Someone has put a recording device here. I would not have seen it had I not been feeling like dusting the back of this TV".
A good friend of mine manages installs of AV equipment. He installs some neat equipment. Some of it is cool tech stuff HN would like. He says a lot of conference rooms have video and audio recording devices.
Not trying to argue about this particular case but how does a camera footage even work in a modern court system? I mean it can be generated nowadays, so how do they even make sure that it is real?
The chain of evidence has always been attackable and necessary for evidence to be admissible in court. It was actually designed to allow reasonable doubt for tampering and other such things.
Photoshop has been around a lot longer than AI. And people have attempted to doctor all kinds of evidence in court since courts began
I suspect the sister did not anticipate the implications of the video. She might have initially created it for herself as a kind of therapy to help her cope, then thought it might help the families case if she showed it. I am just speculating though.
Except her lawyer was there to explain court procedure and implications.
In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).
If I am reading a cookbook, tutorial, or reference to teach myself quickly so that I can accomplish something specific, I completely agree with you. Blog posts can teach something, of course, but when I choose to read a blog, I am hoping to experience a bit of the writer's personality and to be entertained in the process. Storytelling accomplishes both nicely. Also, when I read a blog post, I am not in a rush and don't want to feel like I should be.
This is a really cool project, and I would love to see Magit add support for this. I do have one constructive criticism though, take it or leave it.
I would not say git-bug is "embedded" in Git. It follows Git's command naming convention, so it is resolved by the Git cli if it is found on $PATH. I would say that git-bug integrates with git's workflow and uses git's storage. I think it would be less confusing if the claim were: git-bug is fully integrated with Git, or something similar to that. To say that it is "embedded" implies that the binary is loaded through a plugin or extension mechanism more directly than a command-convention lookup.
It would be nice to add a "right to private thought" to the Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as something similar to other countries' rights and freedoms laws wherever possible.
Technology like that would be incredibly valuable, which means it will be developed if it can be.
You might possibly convince decent democratic countries to not do it, but if you think China, Russia, etc, would hesitate to get hold of this power we don't live in the same universe.
> Technology like that would be incredibly valuable, which means it will be developed if it can be.
I agree! The technology to read the thoughts and intentions of the human brain has some positive applications. I am sure Stephen Hawking would have appreciated significant improvements in this space when he was still alive. The right to private thought does not revoke the right to subject oneself to mind reading technology. Research could still proceed, and positive, lawful application of the technology could still benefit those in need.
> You might possibly convince decent democratic countries to not do it, but if you think China, Russia, etc, would hesitate to get hold of this power we don't live in the same universe.
I agree! The independent governance of countries has consequences, but I believe its advantages outweigh those of global governance. I would rather that there always be a tension between many democracies and dictatorships, than a single governing authority.
Yep, true and helps immoral scumbags embrace their depravity and do what the others would otherwise do, and even bear some semblance of a moral ground in the eyes of the clueless.
This is why I think we should treat or reframe laws as formal systems, akin to Lean / Metamath / etc... : treat it like a database of axioms / principles and theorems with proof.
As long as we don't we have to choose between explicit and repetitive or implicit but concise. The advantage of implicit but concise is that individual citizens can grasp larger sets of axioms & principles, but the we run the risk of having lawyers, judges etc. be confused, confusable, or feigning "innocent confusion" about the law and the spirit of the law. The advantage of explicit but repetitive is that its much harder to confuse if a party can point to a literal sentence stating exactly the situation in one place, but the law easily bulks up exponentially.
On the other hand using a formal system, you can clearly distinctly mark the axioms and normative postulates, and include example theorems ("yes a black citizen is also a citizen", "yes the gypsy is a human", etc...). Even when cases haven't been covered as explicit theorems, the formalized aspect means parties can derive unambiguously the sentences they need to shove in the face of a judge.
I wonder if there is a health hazard wearing this due to breathing in spores or toxins released into the air? Or perhaps there is a risk that the wearer will absorb harmful chemicals secreted by the mycelium via contact with the wearer's skin? Very interesting none the less. I have imagined humans making living clothes for a long time, so it is nice to see that idea materialize.
"Following drying at 45 degrees, the material is not quite living and not quite dead, but instead in a "low-metabolic, dormant-like state", Li told Dezeen, meaning it is not actively growing."
Don't think spores will be an issue since it's not the mycelium's sex organ mushroom that you're thinking of
From TFA: "These are mixed in with the cordyceps militaris"
"Many authors consider C. militaris quite common, spread throughout the Northern Hemisphere,[6] and fruiting bodies appear in Europe from August to November."[0]
Here is a direct link to Figure 3:
https://assets.sfstandard.com/image/994911177489/image_bfl33...
reply