That relatively small in-person games would use rigged shuffling machines, cameras, see-through playing cards, lenses etc seems to all but guarantee that every manner of deception and fraud is being perpetrated by all online gambling sites.
Just stuffing any table with two or more "players/bots" that can see all the cards or share their hands with each other would guarantee enormous payouts on the hundreds of millions at stake in the industry. There are obviously a million more things sites could be doing to take money and there's absolutely no source code control the government does to ensure that the whatever code the regulators look at is running in production and that no other systems are running in parallel, like a bot service that colludes to win.
Knowing nothing about the case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is reality tv distraction porn that's going to end up in shakedowns and pardons being tied up in a nice little bow in the final episode.
I switched from Android to iOS exclusively because of Liquid Glass. It's amazing. I'll just sit there and drag the glass back and forth over different things on my screen and stare in awe.
To be fair, it is an affront to usability, but it looks pretty the first time you play with the distortion of several confusing layers of Glass. I had to play with different wallpapers to find one who distorted the better.
I dont mean to impugn, but that sounds like how someone would describe a toddler being given an ipad. I turn off animations and use apps with an OLED theme.
The first thing I do every time I install a new version of iOS or get a new iPhone is disable all of the animations and enable reduce visual motion in accessibility. Not only is it faster in the countless cases where overambitious UI designers subject us to >0.2s animations, but it dramatically extends battery life
I would do this on macOS if it could make it faster to switch Spaces; unfortunately it does not (just makes the animation into an ugly fade that still takes just as long).
In iOS <= 18 reduce motion works fine but in iOS 26 it just changes animation to be symmetrical and fast. It still an animation and being fast it looks almost like flicker. I don't like animations in UI but had to disable this option in iOS 26.
But wait, have you noticed that it's named "Liquid Glass(TM)", but none of the glass is actually liquid, or even flowing? Everything is solid pieces of glass. You fooled us again, Apple!
I mean I do remember the feeling of switching over to KDE from Windows around.....2005-2010 era and just being blown away by how pretty everything was. I yearn for that feeling again. But I have both android and iOS devices at home and the liquid glass is just......not that nice(imho). I hope I'll get that feeling of awe with computers at some point again.
Yeah, i heard the P320 was originally a non-striker system that they modified to become a striker system to try and save research/development costs from creating a striker system from the ground up, which led to these wildly low tolerances in the FCU and ultimately a poorly designed firearm.
I’ve heard of no issues from the P365 models. A knowledgeable firearm instructor I talked to mentioned the P320 and P365 are entirely different designs internally, and the P365 holds up to Sigs (previously) positive reputation
I can see the benefit to allowing more people to live in NYC, at cheaper prices, because it gives more people more options.
Can you explain what benefit could come from making NYC more expensive? Who benefits from that, and how? I could see landowners wanting that, but that's such a tiny fraction of the NYC populace that I doubt that's your motivation...
NYC doesn’t have any physical gates, but living in manhattan in particular, has a high financial gate, keeping out people who can’t afford it.
Generally people paying 5k+ rents aren’t committing violent crime, homeless sweeps actually happen here and it’s not really possible to sleep on the street.
If you live in an exclusive neighborhood, it’s pretty clean and safe.
there’s angst cheaper rent would change that
EDIT: In a lot of ways NYC’s wealthy and the upper middle class that mostly lives in manhattan have mutual interests the biggest being public safety
interesting interview if you’re interested in more
Can you explain what the benefit is of giving “people” more options (putting people in quotes because they could be current residents, it could be visitors, it could be hypothetical would-residents, it could be people in Alaska - I don’t know what you’re referring to).
Also while it may “give people more options” it inevitably would increase density in one of the most dense cities in the western world. Can you explain why that’s a good thing too?
People move to New York City because they want to live in a dense environment. Currently, options to live in NYC are severely undersupplied compared to the demand to live there. If there was more housing in NYC, a lot more people would choose to live there.
Giving people an option to choose a better life for themself is good in and of itself in my opinion.
Further, density is far better for the environment, greatly decreasing our impact on the environment, and making it easier for us to prevent climate change. It's also far better for the economy, for arts, for science... nearly all human endeavors benefit from the density of cities.
>Can you explain what benefit could come from making NYC more expensive?
People in cities have fewer children, and since children are the future tax base you might want that to occur so that you're not ground up into dogfood in your old age to pay down the national debt.
I do wonder how people think office buildings will comply with fire code which demands multiple avenues of escape from bedrooms during such a catastrophe.
I think that's confusing correlation and causation on childbirth there.
Other places in the world that do not require multiple exits for fires tend to have lower rates of fire death than we do in the US. The multiple exits thing is not actually for fire safety, it's to make multifamily housing harder to build and have less pleasant floor plans. Better fire suppression technology, having closer access to the stairs, are things that actually improve fire safety in practice.
Can you cite some practical failure scenarios besides a wile e coyote billboard where camera inherently won't be able to accomplish what lidar/radar do?
Cameras can obviously work at least as well as a human if they're attached to a human brain. The question is whether you can put enough compute and data together into a car to be able to do it live.
Why even bother when we can make artificial eyes that see depth? The price of LIDAR has plummeted and will continue to plummet. We already know that it works really, really well for self-driving with today's available compute+data.
It's not a given that a camera will even work as well as a human if it's attached to a human brain. The human eye is stereo, it has a focusable lens, an iris, it's incredibly sensitive and the foveated retina has a very high resolution. Can't say the same for the cheap-ass cameras on the Tesla. I'm not sure there is a camera on Earth that is the equal to the eye (yet).
I can't see in the dark, can't see in the fog or the rain, can't see UV, my eyes only see in the rough direction my head is facing, there's a limited ability to track objects. Bicycles coming from behind are particularly easy to miss. Speaking of easy to miss, there's a hole in your vision m that you doing notice, where the optic nerve is. Hell, there's a whole body of work for times when human vision falls short and gets fooled, called optical illusions. There's another whole field of study about failures of the lenses and other parts in the eyes themselves. Some of those failures an electronic camera system is also going to have/have a reliance on components not being broken.
Given the number of shortcomings of human vision why shouldn't our self driving cars be designed to have better than human vision, especially if the goal is to not get into crashes. Humans, with human vision and human object tracking skills, and human reaction times get into crashes all the time. Shouldn't we want better and more sensors, which would lead to few fewer crashes, simply because better sensors have better data available?
Fair point! Is there some advantage eyes have that wouldn't be surmountable with simply more cameras (i.e. to capture different exposure ranges etc)? I actually haven't thought about this side of it super closely, but I think you're right.
Resolution; extreme dynamic range in a single exposure; sensitivity with short exposures in low light; focal range and speed of refocusing; white point adjustments (happening to a large degree in the retina as receptors become temporarily desensitized to a given wavelength with uninterrupted exposure). I’m sure there are more.
It's a question of cost and technology. Cinema cameras don't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just because studios like spending money. Humans can see differences between even the best cameras on the market.
It's also a bit of a false analogy. Cameras don't really work like human vision. We do things like mesopic vision that simply aren't possible with current sensors. We have massively high resolution. We have async "pixels" that can respond immediately without waiting for a framing signal. Our brains process color in truly weird ways.
It's not like there's some physical law preventing computer vision from being better than human vision, but it's an incredibly difficult engineering problem that we've spent the better part of a century attacking without clearly winning.
Shadows. Everyone I know who's tried FSD learns very quickly that it's a random chance that the car will see an oncoming shadow (big truck, bridge, tree, etc) as a wall and either slam on the brakes or swerve.
If you have reliable depth information, ala LIDAR, you'll be able to know that there's nothing actually there.
The wile e cayote failure was using tesla's cruise control rather than FSD. Binocular vision is sufficient.
Lidar will likely be outlawed anyway as it burns your retina. Dare you to put your eye (or cellphone camera) next to a waymo sensor for 10 sec and see what happens.
It is funny you should say that binocular vision is sufficient when Tesla Vision hardware does not have binocular vision.
HW3 has three front-facing cameras that are not only too close together to provide binocular vision with adequate disparity, but also have different fixed focal lengths making them unable to establish binocular focus even if they were far enough apart [1]. HW4 has two front-facing cameras with the same limitations.
This is of course ignoring the fact that humans with visual acuity comparable to the HW3 cameras would almost be legally blind and not meet minimum vision requirements to operate a motor vehicle in, I believe, every state. HW4 cameras are better and you would only be unable to meet minimum vision requirements to operate a motor vehicle in most states, including California and Texas.
The rapid rotation and your blink reflex is apparently what makes it class 1 (supposedly). I don't see how a blink occurs if it isn't in visible spectrum. The science around the safety is very shaky, many tests look at only retina and not cornea damage.
The damage at those wavelengths is just overheating. Your eyes are mainly water with its absurdly high heat capacity compared to pretty much anything in an image sensor. I'd expect eyes to be much more resilient in short duration, high intensity exposures and significantly better at long duration, low intensity exposures. LIDARs have been shifting towards short duration exposures to get higher intensities (for range) in recent years, simply to stay under the class 1 limits.
Heat damage doesn't make it safe, eyes are very sensitive to heat and while the cornea provides some protection, not everyone has a thick cornea due to surgery, and there is also evidence that heating the cornea causes cataracts.
The short exposure is putting a lot of faith in these device manufacturers. How do they guarantee short duration, are you confident that each manufacturer has sufficient electronics to stop the laser if the spinning slows slightly due to dirt, low power or a crash? Should the exposure limits be the same during day vs. night when your pupils are dilated?
I was driving in convoy over closed (to non-convoy driving) mountain pass in Norway, in winter. Everything was white, you could barely see the road. Snow was so heavy that visibility stretched as far as the car before me, you couldn't see further than that. At some point a snow plug passed on the other side of the road and completely covered my windshield with snow, to the point that for a few second I had no visibility whatsoever. Good luck to cameras then.
In case it's helpful to know, Lidar also struggles to perform well in heavy snow due to the scattering and reflection of laser beams by snowflakes, which reduces the detectable range and can create false readings.
I don't buy it, personally. I used to be a big psych guy until I had multiple friends get in dangerous police situations because of them. And I've heard a lot more individual stories. Pretty much every psychedelic festival has people ending up in the security/medical tent. It's not as risk free as people will have you believe.
How many of them get there from intentionally jumping of a roof or carving up their arm? I suspect most are simple dumb accidents, like people have with alcohol, but of a different variety.
Have you been around someone experiencing psychedelic induced psychosis? They are often quite a danger to themselves and others. Usually requiring sedative/chemical restraint & police intervention by EMS. Ask any EMT about this.
Don’t buy it however you like, actual data does not support your claim. How do you know those people ending up in the med tent only took LSD or psilocybin?
Then go read the study I linked, because it analyzes coroners data and tox reports from deaths linked to substance use. Guess what? None of the deaths where people were jumping out of windows, jumping into lakes, etc "from mushrooms" were psilocybin use.
You're doing everybody a disservice by spreading FUD that is contradicted by real world studies and data. It's no better than what Nancy Regan tried (and for the most part succeeded) to do.
I'm not here to argue the stats, I'm just sharing my personal anecdotes from doing psychs 100s of times and going to dozens of psych festivals. My username is mushroom brain. I'm just sharing that it's not all enlightenment and these drugs come with risks. The odds may be low statistically but the consequences can be very high.
The pendulum has swung so far left from the Reagan propaganda to the point that people attempt to downplay any cautionary perspectives and act like these things are purely harmless spiritual panaceas.
The nutshell quote: "Jumping from heights under psychedelics is possible but statistically extraordinary—orders of magnitude rarer than popular mythology suggests."
The chances of being struck by lightning are exceedingly slim. But if you're venturing out on a mountain top in early summer your odds skyrocket. So shouldn't we widely inform people who are doing so of the dangers and what to be aware of?
Maybe heights specifically, but hang out at the medical tent at any decent size music festival and tell me psychedelics are as harm-free as people suggest.
not everyone cares about playing voldemort