It is not a tricky problem because it has a simple and obvious solution: do not filter or block usage just because the input includes a word like "gun".

My dad wears smart glasses because he's nearly deaf and the classes show captions for the person he's talking to. They're great. He doesn't use or care at all about the camera. Having the captions would be very useful to him in a courtroom setting. Collateral damage I guess.

Putting aside that judges can make exceptions when circumstances warrant, one would think that this function (providing live captioning of the proceedings) would be a reasonable accommodation that courts should be able to provide. Especially now that every courtroom is (or can be) equipped for sound and video to support remote operation, it shouldn't be too difficult to support a display with the captioning via the court IT system and alleviate any concerns about surreptitious recording.

There's already a stenographer recording the proceeding, right? I'd think you could project what they're recording onto a display somewhere.

You'd have to translate what the stenographer wrote, whichever system they used, into plaintext first. A layperson won't be able to understand that.

I'd imagine already if not soon we'll have small speech-to-text models that can run in realtime.

There are glasses that do only captions, no recording or camera.

The article says "any eyewear with video and audio recording capability" which makes sense. Although even that is unreasonably specific and should just say "recording or transmission device" to ban the activity and not the item.

Pretty sure any device which subtitles audio could be used to record that audio.

Then it's up to the company to make a compliant device if they want it to be used in a courtroom.

Which is not the problem when the device has no interface to get the data out and no storage media to store it.

This is a courthouse. Judges still have king-like powers in their rooms. Anyone with a real problem will certainly be able to request and be granted an exemption.

That said, get caught misusing such an exemption and you will be hauled in for direct contempt. No big trial. No witnesses. Just the judge ordering you into 30 days custody.

Courts also tend to have existing accessibility setups for these scenarios.

And they are all poorly maintained and/or not functioning. If anyone walks in with their own solution, they will be accomidated. (Metaphor approaching) No judge is going to yank away a blind man's walking stick because it isnt the approved walking stick.

A walking stick isn't the same as a recording device.

If your walking stick has a sword in it like the old spy movies, you won't be getting accommodated either. You'll be getting a loaner or a wheelchair.

He can apply to the court for special permission - and probably use ADA to guide permission

Wow that's amazing. Which glasses can do this?

Yet I get why courts are nervous about anything with a hidden camera/mic

It's not enclosed in the final product. It is used during manufacturing. For example, you mechanically compress helium to get liquid helium, then when it depressurizes back to ambient pressure, it's -269 C, which is pretty close to "as cold as possible", and colder than any alternatives.

why can't this happen in a closed loop, using helium as the working fluid?

Yeah, everyone learns differently, but for me this is a perfect way to better understand how GPTs work.

> > some folks want to use lossless cut > In that case I would encourage you to ruminate on what the following in the post you're replying to means and what the implications are:

You may have misunderstood the comment: "lossless cut" is the name of an ffmpeg GUI front end. They're not discussing which exact command line gives lossless results.

200mg/day is not a "very very small dose". FDA recommended maximum safe amount is 400mg/day.

I was curious what the protein picture was showing: "Figure 1 Example predictions of SimpleFold on targets ... with ground truth shown in light aqua and prediction in deep teal."

and now I'm even more curious why they thought "light aqua" vs "deep teal" would be a good choice

Well, figure a) shows a ribbon representation of the fold (as helices and strands) of the protein 7QSW (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/pdb/7qsw) which is RubisCO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO), an plant protein that plays a key role in photosynthesis.

The different colours are for the predicted and 'real' (ground truth) models. The fact that it is hard to distinguish is partly the - as you point out - weird colour choice, but also because they are so close together. An inaccurate prediction would have parts that stand out more as they would not align well in 3D space.

Zuck owns 13% of Meta shares and 61% of the voting power

Jensen Huang owns 3.8% of Nvidia and 3.8% of the voting power

Tim Cook owns 0.021% of Apple and 0.021% of the voting power

Previously, Steve Jobs owned 0.6% of Apple and 0.6% of the voting power

So yeah, there's a structural difference here and Meta is much closer to being owned, managed, and controlled by Zuck alone

I don't know (and don't need you to elaborate on) exactly what you're referring to in that last sentence, but I suspect you are confusing Eric W. Weisstein with Eric Weisstein.

More likely he's confusing the mathworld author with Stephen Wolfram

Lazy, or more efficient? If you type a time and hit start, you're not microwaving until you're done with all the buttons. If you hit "QS" a bunch to reach the duration instead, the microwave starts cooking immediately on the first press. Your nuggets get done a whole second earlier!