There are also no shortage of concealable cameras...
A big pair of ugly glasses is obvious, you might as well be carrying a full size video camera. You can see it's there and behave accordingly. A pervert is more likely to use a small hidden camera.

Following is massively easier than leading...

If someone else has already done something, then you know it's possible and just need to work out how. And the more information you have about the existing implementation the easier it is to replicate it, as even very minimal high level information is going to steer you in the right general direction.

If you're leading then you can't be sure what is possible, you could spend a lot of resources chasing dead ends.

Most of the theatres here have extremely uncomfortable seats. A small handful of them have decent seats and charge a premium for them.
They also try to sell you large drinks, which cause you to need the toilet, so you either sit there in discomfort needing the toilet or miss a chunk of the movie. If the movie is long then your drink will go cold (or warm) and not taste good.

At home i have a comfortable seat, i can adjust the volume to suit my needs, i can pause the movie if i need to visit the toilet or get another drink etc, and there's noone else there to distract me.

I mostly do heavy multi-disciplinary engineering problems (these I also use for checking an AI, as they're typically not good at these sorts of problems), complex coding, OS analysis, stuff like that. However, sometimes I do throw the occasional odd-ball - I've used ChatGPT to propose a workable quantum mechanics that will cope with Doctor Who canon, for example, and to produce an outline for a story in which symphonic metal appears in 1964 that is compliant with current sociological and psychological models of behaviour.

Claude Opus 4.6 was coping surprisingly well with just about everything I threw at it (but ran out of credits fast), but Opus 5 is churning out incoherent babblings to the point I'm worried I may have accidentally summoned Cthulhu.

But Gemini, Grok, and DeepSeek got hopelessly confused on just about everything past a very low level of complexity. They can handle large problems, yes - Gemini has a huge context window - but complex interactions baffle them.

ChatGPT is able to identify issues correctly, but can only outline solutions, it's just not good at depth. 5.6 is a lot better, but still not good at deep answers. ChatGPT is also prone to agreeing for the sake of it, which makes me nervous about trustworthiness.

That is fair enough. I've been trying out Kimi on the free model, and have subscriptions to Claude and ChatGPT. If Kimi is actually as good or better than ChatGPT, at the pro level, then it might be worth my while moving over as ChatGPT has become very disk-hungry of late and I'm pushing right to the very limits on what it can reliably process.

Although the Chinese models are all considerably smaller, it's not obvious to me that they're as good or better. They could be, but I'm not convinced the benchmarks that currently exist are stressing the models enough to establish where models actually are any good.

You use the can of grue repellant in the lake to get past those.

That humans have sufficiently directional hearing is perhaps the most impressive part. Once you have that, then the rest really just follows,

However, this continues the unexpected senses in humans, one of the first discovered was that humans have a weak magnetic sense.

The potential, both in fact (if you can "see" walls and gaps by clicking then you can presumably navigate a cave even if your light source goes out) and in fiction (this one should really be obvious), is considerable.

That sounds more like a bug or dropped support for older hardware.

No it doesn't. Monitors already have standards for reporting their capabilities and this works just fine on linux and mac.

Not sure you quite get how dopamine works.

A structured database, with separate code to query the data and perform calculations if needed.

There are very few cases where a spreadsheet is the best tool for the job, in most cases it's the only tool the user was given so they came up with some frankenstein mess.

You can't that's the point.
If someone can view the data, they can copy it. The only way to "secure" it is to prevent them from viewing it in the first place.

Any attempt to allow viewing while restricting copying or modification is theatre at best and only provides a false sense of security. At worst it's actively harmful because users who naively rely on such systems often end up taking less precautions than they otherwise would have.
There are _ALWAYS_ ways to bypass such systems.

Here's a little more detail.

Researchers a few years back ran tests. ADHDers and neurotypicals were asked to harvest berries and edible plants.

Neurotypicals tended to over-harvest and damage bushes to the point where recovery would be slow if possible at all, and tended to pick areas clean, wiping out local populations of edible plants.

ADHDers tended to move relatively quickly from area to area, harvesting a decent amount from each area but not excessively. The quantities tended to be at the sort of level that have long been established as a good balance, such that plants and populations would tend to actually do better the following year. Not only that, but they tended to gather more.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Crofts and small farms rapidly went to three-stage and four-stage crop rotation, but different fields would be with different crops. This meant that the failure of a single crop would be much less of a survival thing.

You'd see fields with a mutitude of diverse crops, because diversity was critical. Failure was highly likely, so you localised it. Failure in one area had no meaningful impact overall. Things like the Irish potato famine and the parsnip failures across France in the 1700s were relatively rare in history. Likewise, when industrialisation wiped out cottage industries, farms that had been very successful suddenly went bankrupt and mass starvation was common. The ability to task-switch and have a large number of small projects going was essential to life at the edges.

You're absolutely right, more ADHD would have indeed curbed the excesses. The industrial revolution caused huge problems by trying to do too much with too little diversity. Which eventually destroyed the economies built around the early mills, because the markets were too easy to undermine. There was no capacity to switch. But during the IR, the obsession with coal meant nobody really looked at alternative fuels or alternative activities. Economies became tightly constricted, which was devastating when it came to global warming, but equally devastating when it came to distributing metal-devouring bacteria (which did enormous damage to infrastructure) and radioactive particles (old mill areas are still unusually radioactive).

More ADHD wouldn't have eliminated the problem, but it would have diversified the solutions and would have diversified the markets, resulting in a much more robust, much healthier marketplace and a much more robust, much healthier population.