The responses so far say so much about the HN audience. As a mobile app designer, developer, I'll throw in some higher level tools that I love:
- Figma
- Slack
- VS Code
- DataGrip (most JetBrains tools really)
- Photoshop
- 1Password
- Lightroom (Classic, of course)
- UBlock Origin
- Gusto (makes my life easier as a startup founder)
That’s a super neat idea! I have a feeling the inevitable solution to this need will be a combo of a tech like Apple’s Center Stage and some sort of eye-focusing alteration to the image, like a live deep fake of yourself (just the eyes). Software-only means widespread adoption.
They need a firm launch date because of the cascading research windows already allocated, but there are 344 single points of failure, and it will be virtually impossible to fixed once launched. I'm terribly excited for the advancements this telescope will bring, but I'm very nervous about the launch and deployment.
Agents and homeowners have been taking photos of homes for sale for decades, and all sorts of private info has leaked this way. I’m in the industry on the tech side and I’ve seen photos of people naked in mirrors, signed documents, children, hobbies/interests, framed photos saying things like “Joseph Edward Smith - born Aug 6, 2010”, bills and more.
This technology makes it more likely for the volume of leaked data to increase, and the photo resolutions give more data per image, but agents have been trained to stage houses for a long time and should be expected to handle this. Blame the agent.
Although the tech certainly has room for improvement. All it takes is for someone to sue Zillow for exposing their private images online for automatic blurring technology to magically appear.
No-scope is a gaming term for sniping someone from a sniper rifle without zooming in using the scope. Very difficult to do, and this is a weird application of the phrase. 230 about to be “nuked” would probably be more applicable. It implies destroyed by pushing a button. No effort involved and immediate annihilation.
I don’t understand this new fascination with gutting 230. 230 protects the speech of the users, since the platform isn’t held responsible for what they say. Make YouTube liable for its users content, and now the whole system is moderated to remove any polarizing content. This means politicians like Trump will NEVER have a platform for their message. Why would they intentionally vote to de-amplify their own voices?
I think this experience makes their opinion more valuable actually. Maybe they should have put in a disclaimer, but I always assume posters on HN have distinct insight based on relevant experience in the topic. At least this person provides a nice counter-argument to the general trend in these comments. I appreciate it even if I disagree.
