at1as

Thanks for the extra context!

I didn't see a published date, but taking another look, I suppose that "Copyright © 1995-2012 nycsubway.org." is a giveaway that some of this information might be stale.

Doesn't feel much like it day-to-day in the NYC subway, but glad things are indeed continuing to change

Moving in the right direction, but unfortunately it's still quite a few years before H264 is off patent, globally:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...

At which point, the continued march towards higher resolution and bandwidth video will probably limit their utility

Thanks, I'm glad it helped! I still think it's too long, but kudos to those that made it through

Agreed on all of these points. I think that this will happen (...eventually)

I think this is part of a recurring pattern in tech of pushing boundaries around copyright.

In the last few years, we had Google scanning books, Google threatening to shut down News in Canada rather than pay publishers, LLMs summarizing articles on social platforms, crawlers bypassing paywalls, and so on.

Each time, the industry frames it as their interpretation of the current law, which were usually not written with these specific future use cases in mind.

In my view the current discussion regarding Gen AI is similar.

I think the problem is that “transformation” has never been clearly defined in copyright law, and that ambiguity is exactly what AI companies lean on in their defense.

At a human scale, those boundaries get clarified through litigation on a case by case basis once an infringement becomes large or obvious enough. But there has always been a gray area around when a derivative work crosses the line into infringement.

And AI didn’t create that ambiguity, it just pushed it to a more extreme scale

Personally I feel that the excessive duration of copyright just weakens authors arguments against AI.

That excess exists precisely because of the industry’s clout. For decades, rightsholders successfully lobbied Congress to extend copyright term again and again. That process appears to have finally plateaued, which is why early Mickey Mouse has now entered the public domain.

And notably, since the rise of AI, the government has not been especially quick or eager to step in and defend rightsholders.

Basically a rage bait. If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? In fact Anthropic is literally paying $1.5B on the copyright settlement, that indicates its completely a settled issue that AI companies have been violating this law. Some have been caught and fined, others are been lucky or that influence over the government.

Yes, but they were found not liable for copying the books they purchased. They were found liable for the books they torrented.

The former is something publishers still want to address

Thank you. Was missing a GH Pages setting for that

I'm a very casual and very occasional gamer, so I can't deeply about this topic. But, is gaming in a dire state?

Platform exclusives seem to be rare (outside of Nintendo). I have an xbox (which I'm told is the wrong console), but I can play nearly everything a PS5 can. Most major titles seem to be very cross platform (PC, Xbox, PS5, and sometimes Nintendo). If anything, they stagger release dates, not access.

Steam's market share has held relatively steady at 75%. And in fairness, it does not seem like Epic is trying at all to improve their product, so I'm not sure they're deserving of more right now. GoG continues to have ts cult following (I had never heard of it until recently, but now see references to it frequently).

And it seems to be easier to game on Linux (and even Mac) than in the past few years.

I have no way of verifying this, but Perplexity states that ~5% of Steam games are exclusives. Have they exerted monopolistic pressure on the market in other ways?

The internet is a marketplace of ideas.

Engage with or amplify content you agree with. Create content of your own that represents your values or ideas. If you want, try to persuade others where you think they're wrong.

Overall, if you can feel good about what you've put out there, that's enough. You'll field comments like this no matter what it is.

You're conflating several things.

Tech nostalgia is driven, in part, by a lack of excitement about what current companies are offering. It wasn't really present when we were all excited about Apple, etc.

That nostalgia signals there's a market for alternatives, which we've seen some companies serve, and expect others to enter. This will provide us with more choices apart from "Apple" vs. "Google" end-to-end ecosystems.

Tech is also fun because we have some new categories for the first time, perhaps since mobile. VR isn't popular per se, but I consider it mature. Ray Ban Metas are also a new category (consider an emerging AR application — or more of a glorified camera device, for now). A first person point of view for videos is very different than what's captured by a smartphone; I feel like I'm "there" when I watch travel videos I've taken with them, much more than when I watch what's taken with my phone.

The only personal statement I'm making is that tech seems primed to be fun again (though we probably have to anchor our expectations around a local maxima)

Isn't that simply what cameras cost, since glass needs to be manufactured very precisely?

I'm replacing a 12 year old canon 6D with 4 lenses accumulated over that time period with one-and-done camera. It's precisely the cost of upgrading all of that to the new mirrorless system that pushed me in this direction.

An entry level Canon Rebel is like $600, with an extremely constrained focal range. Essentially any non-prime lens will double that cost.

It's hard to understand how $1200 is considered outrageous for a camera (though for the record, these cost more like $2K, but mine is a used Typ-109 which was $800)?

What are you considering buying?

As long as we can do away with the ultra Minimalism aesthetic, I'm on board.

Mine gather dust except for travel. But they're worth it to me for that use case alone.

I also wouldn't be surprised if that was a common pattern.

I'm not making any claims... Clearly being a creep with the glasses is popular enough to create a whole cottage industry.

I think this is pretty much a claim. But in any case, it's not unique to smart glasses. Smartphones also have this problem, which is why they're legally required to make an audible shutter noise in many jurisdictions. And unlike glasses that power on when unfolded and worn on the face, phones and other types of devices can be much more discreet.

You can address AR glasses by changing the laws - Québec has uniquely strong privacy laws against photographing people, even in public places. The rest of Canada and the US have much weaker protections in this area.

You can also change the regulations for the companies that produce the devices. The Ray Ban Metas will not function if the light is tampered with, but clearly there is a cat and mouse game where people temporarily evade those restrictions until they're tightened again. It's obviously not in Meta's interest to allow people do this. But a comparison will inevitably play out as the tech is commoditized and people find off-brand alternates in the back of Shenzen markets.

New technology will bring much bigger challenges than smart glasses. A few I worry about are every conversation being recorded and transcribed by personal AIs (with ultra discreet devices), and the authenticity of audio, video, or image content may one day be unproveable (in which case every recorded corruption scandal becomes a plausible denial).

The article's claim, however, is that we're starting to find off-ramps to many one or two-player marketplaces, and the domain that the meta Ray bans operate within will be one of those (in the interim we should probably be thankful it's not just another Apple product, and that they actually have to play catch up. A weaker Apple will have to treat consumers and partners better). The article's point is that the future of tech looks fun, and should provide consumers with more choices.

Sure, the side effects of future tech could be very bad, but that'd be the case whether or not the points in the article are true.

walking around in wired headphones because it's cool and nostalgic, not because of usability

Can only speak for myself, but I purchased some $15 wired USB-C earbuds to use on flights while the Airpods were charging.

And I've been increasingly just using them. The Airpods would often not connect in one ear without a few tries, and the pairing was a pain (disabled the auto-pairing as that was even worse), even on a medium-length flight I'd have to charge them at least once, and I'd often find a way to fidget with the case and have everything disconnect.

I think I overestimated how much value their noise canceling or audio quality was bringing me when I mostly used them for podcasts.

Palmer Lucky mentioned in an interview that they were looking into making a TV, in part because of how much he hated all the adware slop bundled into modern TVs.

He then followed that they were investigating whether they could build a modern CRT. I can't immediately find the except, but I had previously watched the interview

A classic.

Will need one to compliment the A168

It feels like a such an American point of view to think a techno-ideal is defined simply by buying a different set of consumer electronics, many of which are just as throwaway as the ones before

This author is European, even if posting from the US.

There are classes of items that are throwaway, but bring other kinds of value (like all of the soldering kits I used to buy, that were basically garbage once assembled but were very educational and steered my career in a certain direction).

There are classes of items that increase the volume of e-waste over time. Dedicated purpose driven devices (like e-readers). And there's a compelling alternative: Apple makes very good stuff. You can buy a Mac and an iPhone and keep them for up to a decade (with a battery replacement in-between). You can use that iPhone to many things (like reading books). But I think the real costs of that consolidation aren't worth it, and that anyone growing up in that environment won't be curious or inspired about tech the way I was.

And there are items that are throwaway because they're cheap and won't last. These I usually avoid. The ASUS, I'm finding out, was questionable, though purchased with good intentions - Macbook like solid aluminum chassis, etc. But the Leica (actually 2nd hand), Apple stuff, even the Ray Bans are all pretty durable.

I actually see a lot more "throwaway" tech, and culture around it in Asia than I do in the US. Things are pretty conservative over here for the majority of people.

the way I was excited by the N64 or the early web.

This is part of the reason I've been buying old, physical games. It brings some clarity and focus that I frankly find difficult scrolling through an endless digital library. Something about the mere act of inserting a CD or cartridge subconsciously silences distractions and feels like a real commitment rather than a passive activity.

It may be more of a callback to the past than the future, but I think there's a reasonable chance the future will look similar, with a wave of new products that seek to do similar things and evoke the same reactions. Time will tell.

If the only future we can envision is a curated list of retro-gadgets and subscriptions, we have lost the plot.

Hate subscriptions. Left Adobe because of them. Will leave 1Password when they finally end my one-and-done 1Password 7 purchase. Don't use Microsoft Live for my Xbox. Spent years manually copying iPhone photos weekly to avoid the Apple storage subscription (this one I've admitted defeat on). The only subscription product on that list is an Oura Ring, for which I'm grandfathered into a non-subscription plan; would give it up otherwise.

If the predicted AI-driven downward pressure on per seat pricing plays out in SaaS, there's reason to believe consumer subscriptions would likely be under pressure as well.

there's a strong unspoken signaling of "look at how cool I am"

I think tech should feel cool to the person using it, but it won't make a person cool either way. And it's an odd thing to fixate on.

You're saying "my tech choices signal discernment."

I'm saying I have choices (at least, relative to earlier). I can use a Mac (or not) and that can tell you much less about the type of phone I have than a would have a few years ago.

Bambu Labs is the new 3d printer monoculture. Meta is the AR monoculture

Then it's not really monoculture? It's narrow rather than cross-all-domains. I'm fine is there's a "toaster brand" everyone buys, or everyone likes Dyson vacuums, as long as it's not Apple producing it.

From what I see there appear to plenty of alternatives to Bambu. Instead of smugly calling people amoral because they bought a popular 3D printer, why not explain what's wrong with Bambu? I still genuinely don't know the criticism. Is it proprietary formats? Banning IP infringing content on their store? DRM? Industry lobbying for something nefarious? Lawfare? What is it that are they doing...?

To me this article reads as soft elitism

Wouldn't the Apple bro archetype signal this more strongly? I think you may have seen a Leica in the list and way over-indexed on that, while it's actually at quite old D-LUX Typ-109 (not much newer than the Canon it replaces).

And I think the smug condescension throughout the response is closer to a kind of elitism, no?

side of mid-life crisis

Hopefully I'm not at mid-life quite yet, and definitely not in crisis. That aside, I’m not sure it's useful to frame a critique of an article that way.

People seem to be increasingly interested in it for interior design. I've seen this reported in a few places, Pinterest being one of those sources https://bestreviews.com/articles/home/decor/pinterest-fall-2...

There's also, of course, the aggressive A16Z Art Deco rebranding. But we can put that one to the side.

I think if there's a trend towards purpose driven devices, those can evolve at a faster rate than our consolidated everything phones. So eventually we'll see something exciting based upon it's novelty and merits.

We'll see!

first-world tech consumerism is out of control ... this is living in a silicon bubble. 90% of the planet just doesn't care, is not even aware of these "toys"

The US is not really among the countries that likes tech "toys". The number of things you can buy in BestBuy, for instance, doesn't compare to a trip to Shenzen, Tokyo, HK, etc. Those items are far more likely to be throwaway than the things listed in my article (most of which are high quality and I expect can last a decade).

I think it's part of why the tech bros consistently over-estimate the relvance, pace and world-changing potential of technology like LLMs

I think the opposite is happening. A year ago it was sacrilege to state that an LLM would not lead to AGI. Today that's pretty uncontroversial to say that and most discussions center around 2nd order impacts of current capabilities on employment, education, etc.

Technology does change the world eventually, but the latest pair of smart goggles or a slightly better camera on your personal surveillance device does not.

You can judge the product uncharitably, but I prefer to judge the outcome. Shared with my family many travel videos from my Rayban Metas. Provides a much more intimate perspective, like you're actually at the Swiss Alps, which just isn't a perspective you get from a smart phone. And this was not an upgrade, per se, it was me entering a new category that simply didn't exist before. My other cameras are not recent (Canon 6D - 12 years old, iPhone 12 - 5 years old).

I think the distraction problem is more fundamental than that. Especially for children growing up now with a very capable smartphone who will experience genuine anxiety being separated from it.

Nostalgia is perhaps a catalyst, but I'm convinced there is something more there.

The ASUS laptop I bought has a litany of issues: blue screens, audio dying, won't wake from sleep. MSFT, Nvidia and ASUS all blame each other.

I have a feeling modern Linux on this machine wouldn't be worse than what it shipped with. The days of fighting for 3 days with audio or printer drivers after an install are mostly behind us.

There are two claims you're making 1) they're rarely used 2) when they are it's nefarious

To the first point, they've sold at least 2M pairs, and are reported scaling production to handle up to 10M units per year.

To the second point, do you believe that all or most of those 2M people using it for those purposes? Or to take videos of travel, music festivals, etc.

Lots of companies are rushing into this space, so you kind of have to legislate, or choose to view competition in this space, even amongst 3 major players, as as slightly preferable to competition amongst just 2.

The Rayban-Meta partnership is such a funny thing to shoehorn in? Two giant monopolists creating a new surveillance-tech product which nobody likes. It couldn't be more "monoculture".

Are we really concerned about an Essilor-Luxottica monopoly? Is there lock-in, shady dealings, etc? Can't you just buy sunglasses from other brands (or brandless glasses)?

Regarding Meta, they are playing a role in shifting us from monoculture (or two player markets) to three or more players.

Meta may be ahead of the pack, but they'll be joined by Google and Apple soon. Apple's poor treatment of their partners through the App Store really damaged the Apple Vision Pro launch, which is a good thing.

One does not need to love Meta to see the value in bringing more players into a given market. We deserve more than Apple vs. Google across all of our decisions.

The surveillance is unfortunately inevitable at this point. Cameras are cheap and are everywhere. You're never more than a few feet from a multi-camera cellphone. I don't see any way around this short to national legislation restricting their use.

I still have my old pebble (the metal one they made between the original and Pebble Time). The battery has finally died, otherwise I'd still definitely still wear it from time to time

It's simpler than that - retro is an (a e s t h e t i c)

I think I agree. But I also think a second order consequence of this is chipping away at the standalone ecosystems (Apple, Google, etc). Even a small contingent of user demand spins up new (or renewed) categories, and that fuels a healthier tech environment