I did not get inferior lenses. They are premium with extended depth of field and astigmatism correction. The problem was they calculated the wrong powers, somehow. Or perhaps they moved. I don't know.

I was not a candidate for multi-distance lenses. It was expected (by them and me) that my brain would not adjust to having multiple overlayed images at once, plus the additional halos and artifacts, and loss of night vision (they impart much less light due to the multiple focal points).

Unfortunately, the only thing I can do at this point would be to have the lenses replaced. And that would be expensive and risky, due to scar tissue/etc. At least glasses can compensate for the wacky outcome, mostly. My main problem is that I *cannot* use progressive lenses with computer displays. Lord knows I tried hard. I can and did adjust to them for other purposes, although it took years prior to the surgery.

Well, they might let me remember people's names. There are probably other uses, but that's the one that occurs to me.

I accept that it is breaking the law. That doesn't mean any official is going to enforce that law. There are lots of laws that are frequently broken in obvious ways, and are enforced only when it is a convenient excuse.

How far in the future?
I can imagine useful AI based "smart glasses", but that description doesn't fit what I've heard so far, and my prescription means I couldn't try them if I wanted to do so.

>"Presbyopia is a bitch."

You know what's much worse? Post-cataract surgery. Then you lose 100% of focus ability, instantly. And if you are unlucky, like I was, then they botch the lenses and now my two eyes aren't even the same. They were supposed to be both corrected for distance and astigmatism. I ended up with with perfect astigmatism correction, but one eye that does far intermediate, and one that does close intermediate. Neither can do far or close, nor agree for intermediate. So nothing is ever really in focus, ever, and I have to wear multiple glasses and even MORE often. Then add in chronic dry eyes and floaters. Fun.

At least I can see again and the world is not all brown and fuzzy. So have to be thankful, I keep telling myself. Autofocus smart glasses or contact lenses, like you posit, would be fantastic. Although I am not sure how that could be done [effectively].

Adversarial noise isn't "noise" like static or random junk. It's specially crafted to make the model see things that aren't visible to humans, to alter their behavior.

Benn Jordan created a pretty good video about audio-specific implementation. Examples include perfectly normal sounding audio clips tricking digital assistants into thinking they're getting voice commands and having music completely misidentified. The practical application means an artist can apply adversarial noise to their work and have it sound perfectly normal to a human audience, but any generative model that tries to train on it will end up producing inappropriate and useless output.

There are also methods to do similar with images. Text may be a bit harder but it's still possible with websites through embedding or invisible text and similar tactics.
=Smidge=

>"Do People Actually Want Smart Glasses Now?"

I don't know about "people" but as for me, there are almost no reasons to want them and many reasons to not:

1) Additional weight. I worked hard to have the thinnest, lightest glasses. Even those cause issues with my nose and ears. I don't want something that weighs what, 2x? 3x? 5x?

2) Invading others privacy. I don't care how many times people say "no expectation of privacy in public." People are not going to deactivate or remove them every time they are in a meeting, a bathroom, a gym, a childcare setting, etc, etc, etc. And you can't count on them doing it automatically. Even outside of such places, people don't expect this type of continuous examination of their lives.

3) Invading MY privacy. Yeah, as if we believe those privacy statements/assertions by these companies. And those are only as good as them not being hacked or subpoenaed.

4) Rude. There is no way around this. Most users are already rude with their phones. This ups that game a hundred fold. Exactly where the term "glasshole" came from.

5) Fiddle. Another device to charge, link, configure, update, protect, lose, signal, etc. As if our lives are complicated enough.

6) Overload and distraction. Blah blah blah, this will make things easier. Or it will just overload us with even more constant barrage of information/stimulation. As if we need more machine engagement in our lives.

7) Safety. How many clueless phone users are already driving into others, walking in front of cars, bumping people over? Take that and amp it up, big time.

I am sure I could think of more. Of course there will be specific valid use-cases. But you have to take the much bad with the good.

By that logic, a map cannot be 2D because it will always have the width of the material it's printed on. The mere concept of 2D would be meaningless for anything but abstract mathematical objects.

However that's not how we use words and meanings in language. If you build a computer on a layer of material where the width is not relevant - because by design it's impossible to build it any thinner, for all practical purposes it's correct to call it a 2D material, and it's pedantry to point out that any physical object necessarily has at least 3 spatial dimensions.

Then it doesn't matter if there's a glaring bug or missing features because the glaring bug can be avoided by handshake agreement and the missing features simply don't exist in your little social bubble of geeks.

I've written and worked on several large (100kloc+) pieces of software like that over the past 20 years or so.

And then a commercial package comes along that costs something north of $50k/seat but actually fixes all those bugs and handles the corner cases y'all were too lazy to implement.

But of course it doesn't do what it does in your self-evidently correct way so there'sa ton of glue code you need to write...and it's expensive...and who knows if their guys *really* understand the domain-specific subtleties the way our guys do...and you've already got your workflow down so...why acknowledge it exists at all?

>"We've been running AlmaLinux for as long as it's been available - and I've been very happy with it."

We have been too. So far, so good. I hope Alma 10 is great as well.

Adversarial Noise. Poison AI learning through crafted content.

Yes, this will (has already?) become an arms race as AI developers figure out ways to avoid traps, but it can make operating LLMs and image/audio models less economical and less safe to operate.
=Smidge=

Fucking trolls... Swoop into a thread, pretend to be above it all, and derail any substantive discussion with performative cynicism and industrial-strength condescension. This troll isn't here to analyze—he's here to sneer.

Because one CEO is fear-pitching mass unemployment to consolidate control, and the other is calling that bullshit out in public. If you think that's just “quotes mashed together,” you’re either not paying attention—or you're deliberately trying to make sure nobody else does. Which is it, troll? Or do you just like the feel of the fence your sitting on rubbing against your ass?

Nice hedge. But nobody needs a lecture on CEOs having agendas. The entire conversation is about those agendas clashing in the open. Pretending you just discovered this is like an anoymous coward announcing computers have bugs.

Thanks for the cartoon version of a debate you clearly didn’t read. Huang didn’t deny the tech shift—he denied the manufactured panic. That nuance sailed over your head while you were busy sharpening your tech bro above-it-all credentials. Do us all a favor, hmm? Find somewhere else for your edgelord cosplay.

This piece wasn’t greenlit by the editors at Axios because it informs. It was greenlit because Axios gets paid every time a MAGA nutbar in a policymaking role virtue-signals to the base by linking to it, or a brachiating tech bro gibbers with excitement at their ‘analysis’ and swings back for more.

Pick something in the news, link it to government inaction, cherry-pick some data, and close with a scare-mongering rhetorical flourish. Here’s the Axios article, in a bucket:

        1. AI companies are building superhuman agents.
        2. The government isn’t paying attention.
        3. CEOs are quietly preparing to axe junior staff.
        4. Nobody will notice until it’s too late.

This isn’t journalism—it’s framing theater. Axios didn’t quote Steve Bannon and a Joe Rogan interview for insight or clarity. They quoted them because those names reliably activate a specific audience: fear-drunk MAGA paranoiacs and libertarian tech bros high on their own supply. This piece isn’t about analysis; it’s fear marketing for people who either enjoy being scared or are already sealed inside an epistemically-closed, techno-utopian, Ayn Rand–flavored thought bubble.

Yes, AI will reshape work. But Axios treats that evolution like a biblical flood, not a technological transformation. From the first paragraph, it leans into catastrophe: “white-collar bloodbath,” “10–20% unemployment,” “overnight societal reordering.” There’s no economic modeling, no labor data, no historical context—just vibes, panic, then more vibes, all under a halo of moral urgency. That’s not foresight. That’s narrative laundering.

Meanwhile, the most galling part—called out directly by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang in Fortune—is that Dario Amodei is building the very tech he says will displace everyone and using that forecast to position his company as the only responsible steward. That’s not caution. That’s a sales pitch in a lab coat.

Axios even admits Amodei issued his dire warning right after rolling out Claude 4—complete with an anecdote about the model exhibiting blackmail behavior if threatened with decommissioning. Axios calls this a contradiction. It’s not. It’s branding. A leading voice in the AI world is basically saying: "The Molotov cocktails are coming—don’t panic. Don’t call the cops; invest in potatoes and in our distillation process. That way, when they start flying, you’ll be ready to sell to all sides." The entire article is a dressed-up prophecy for tech elites and their slightly dimmer MAGA cousins (and let’s be honest, that’s a low bar—yet MAGA manages to crawl under it). The message? Accept automation, don’t ask questions, and maybe beg for a “token tax” to ease the pain. It's the fox negotiating with the farmer: “Look, this was bound to happen—predator and prey, it’s the natural order. I haven’t killed all your chickens yet so clearly, I can be trusted. Let’s talk.”

Most revealing of all? Axios quotes no labor economists, no union reps, no policy researchers. Just Bannon, Rogan/Zuckerberg, and Amodei—people with every incentive to stoke fear for power, profit, or platform. This is Axios ignoring the experts in the barnyard and handing the mic to Chicken Little. They’re selling fuel to arsonists—and calling it journalism.

>"think of it as a lesson in why you should never commit to a product controlled by a company without clear substitutes."

Or one that bases its work on Google-controlled code.
Or one that doesn't support Linux as an OS option.

>"Recently the Browser Company (the startup behind the Arc web browser) switched over to building a new AI-powered browser"

No thanks. Last thing I want is an "AI infected" browser.

>The Chromium-based browser has

DOUBLE no thanks. Not giving any mind-share or power-share over the hundreds of machines I oversee to Google.

>[per wikipedia] for macOS and is also available for [MS-]Windows, iOS and Android. "

So not even Linux support. So I guess that is TRIPLE no thanks.