On what legal footing does this recap feature stand? In fairly certain there are a non-zero amount of laws prohibiting audio recording without consent. And this wrist mounted always listening thing is likely to end up in a lot of places it should not. Probably burried in the end user agreement that it is 100% the users fault.
Instant in-memory transcription likely isn't legally considered the same as storing the actual audio. It probably couldn't be used as proof in a court like audio could (for now...).
Aren't you just confused about this whole situation? You do know that the human the watch is attached to has ears right? Which record and store the information?
You have no expectation of privacy next to another human in public places.
Human memory is well known to be unreliable. There’s a clear difference with “he said, she said” type recollections and what Apple is doing. People forget things and they get things wrong.
There may indeed be no expectation of privacy in public but this still really creepy and slightly threatening.
It’s always listening and allows you to go back without pressing record before hand.
Now you have a potential written record of every off colour remark, joke and personal discussion you over hear.
Maybe you think the world would be better if we all watch what we say in public further, I don’t.
IANAL but my guess is that they're leaning heavily into the fact that the feature just generates transcripts and does not persist any audio recordings.
Yes, many states in the U.S. have recording laws that prohibit only one party giving consent to record. Aka: I give consent but the other party may not in which case it could be illegal.
It's entirely different. One is fingerprinting ambient audio against a corpus of known signatures to identify music, another is basically silently monitoring and summarizing every conversation it hears for later review.
I don't feel like my privacy is being invaded by a date's phone telling them what song was playing at the restaurant, but I would be disturbed if their phone produced a summary of our conversation, especially if any vulnerable topics came up.
I feel like I'd also be a little weirded out to find my date referencing the summary or transcript later, maybe that's just me. Like if I said something personal and they whipped out a notebook and wrote it down real fast, that's unnerving.
The Android feature is matching songs it hears to an on-device database of fingerprints, the other is recording, transcribing, and summarizing all conversations around it. Seems a little different.
I'm actually glad to see it stumbled in a few areas. Always surprised to see how much it gets right though. I had always hoped the rather obscure parts of computer history and games would be this incredibly difficult area for Agents to mine.
The amount of non standard hackish and obtuse things that had to be done to implement things in the past feel impossibly complicated to touch today. Lots of people made it up as they went along and used the hardware in ways no one expected. Reminds me of Tim Follin doing the audio for Plock on SNES and Miamoto being shocked the audio was real. It would be so interesting to see what we could learn about development of the past from agentic insights into how code was constructed. I love stuff like this an appreciate the in depth post.
Embrace the esoteric! Grammar and sentence structure are but mear suggestions when everything I author can be claimed free form written poetry. The counter culture is humanity, we can be the embodiment.
I do agree though. Finding actual strung together words by humans is not easy these days.
> Grammar and sentence structure are but mear suggestions
Learning French has been eye opening, in that many grammatical structures that are optional in English are compulsory in French. Abbreviations for example: “it is” or “it’s” are both valid in English, but in French you’re not supposed to say “ce est”, you have to say “c’est”.
I think that example's more a practicality of pronunciation. The two vowels in ce est are the same, and French runs the vowels together between words, so you'd end up pronouncing it the same either way.
That's not to say that you must always speak with perfect grammar all the time. You can play around with things for humour, character, rhetorical effect all day long.
English has places where one or the other is preferred. For example one, would normally write, “It is with great regret…,” without the contraction. It’s not a hard rule, more a matter of register. Similarly, in the preceding sentence, “it is” would seem overly formal.
The thing with standardisation bodies is that as much as certain organisations and journals can have their grammar mandated, regular folk will still continue to evolve the language as it does. For example, The Academie and French teachers would like you to use "nous" for "we", but it's been slowly creeping over to "on". No amount of browbeating is going to stop a French teen saying "le weekend"
Between this and actually portable executable I'm not convinced someone hasn't made a PNG thats a spreadsheet, or an audio file the somehow renders DOOM across the room. HN amazes me with the absolutely cursed ideas of implementing a minecraft in pure css (or showing whatever other nightmares one can do with CSS). It shows the most incredible creativity in what one can do with the freedom of arranging bits however one wants. I'm in love with all these cursed projects and hope they never stop.
PoC || GTFO has an issue that is a PDF that is also a valid NES rom which will render the md5sum of the PDF itself, and other crazy tricks of that type over the years.
But the bar for hauling someone to court and defacto punishing them financially and smearing them in the eyes of the public is so low. And the path to getting compensation for wrongful prosecution so fraught. What an easy tool the justice system is to punish uppity citizens thinking they don't have a king.
You think they'll see a courtroom? Ha! If they're lucky they'll get there in 5yr and $15k.
When the administrative enforcement bureaucracies want to harass you they'll hit you with some ruinously expensive civil fine BS. No court will give a crap about you until you've exhausted a bunch of appeals, which you of course appeal to the same agency that's trying to screw you. Only after years of that (and invariably legal fees, because you can't go it alone), do you sue them and get to see a real courtroom. But even then, this is a civil matter, not a criminal one, so all your rights have been nerf'd and there's a hundred years of precedent and case law that tilt things in their favor. If you get lucky, they'll settle and you'll only be out a few tens of thousands for the ordeal.
I'm partial to anything that looks like a nuclear control room (saw one in this list). It's like a while different generation of UX but derived from totally different parts, goals, users, and of course a lot of the people who designed these had been military. Not a lot of room for fluff, lots of room for clarity.
Love to see the dizzying array of ways people imagined data can be shown. Everything these days feels so flat. Appreciate the share.
Regulatory capture and lobbies will keep you safe and you'll like it! The sudden surge is Washington dollars makes great sense with this context. Only way to keep the kids safe is attested compute all the way down. Don't you care for children???
> In economics, a normal good is a type of a good for which consumers increase their demand due to an increase in income, unlike inferior goods, for which the opposite is observed. When there is an increase in a person's income, for example due to a wage rise, a good for which the demand rises due to the wage increase, is referred as a normal good. Conversely, the demand for normal goods declines when the income decreases, for example due to a wage decrease or layoffs.
> Whether a good is categorized as a normal good or an inferior good is based on empirical observations, not some essential element of a good. Indeed, the same good may be a normal good for one group of consumers and an inferior good for another group. For example, for moderate-income consumers, a BMW 3 Series car might be a normal good, but for an upper-income group, it might be an inferior good.[1]
That means the null hypothesis is that food and drugs will be safer in rich countries. (Conversely, food and drugs will be less safe in poorer countries. And to a first approximation, that's independent of regulation: India has all kinds of rules for all kinds of things, but I'd still trust a random product I buy in Switzerland more than one I buy in India. Even though the Swiss will probably might have fewer and looser rules on the books.)
Of course, second order effects exist; and regulations often codify what people demand anyway.
Btw, from what I've read the big controversy with the FDA is around requiring efficacy for drugs. People are fairly ok with the safety requirements.
Why let your dreams be dreams? This is a perfect example of following a hypothesis. I love when people dive into an esoteric subject and just go full swing. Reminds me a CGP Grey and the name Tiffany. Sometimes you just need to know.
Reminds me of the old construction photos for nuclear reactors in the US. Astoundingly complex machines at a massive scale getting out together at what now feels like impossible speed. I can't help but feel like a Roman 100 years after the fall staring up at aqueducts wondering how anyone every built such a thing.
I'm positive someone could show me an impressive thing we built recently. I don't feel like that is my point. Im just astounded those people in that time could build what they built with the tools they had as fast as they did.
We can build amazing things today too, but we have a lot higher standards and a lot more requirements than they did, which makes everything take longer time.
Outside my office window an enormous new new warehouse was erected in just a few weeks, but it is just a huge box with no added extras so it can't have been very hard to do
One thing that changed is that modern engineering moved a lot of complexity from the construction site into the design phase. A project today may take longer because we simulate, certify, model failures, and optimize before pouring concrete. The old projects sometimes had more visible physical labor, but less computational overhead.
Engineering developed a government entwined professional licensure system and used that to capture value that was previously the domain of the construction industry.
This also introduces massive potential for bike shedding, nitpicking, stalling, etc which of course costs us all.
reply