Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | wepple's commentslogin

> but can't do that yet because its not possible.

Huh? Why not?


Because the central limitation is still mass; a friction-fit frame light enough to sit on your face all day without fatigue is the market expectation for eyewear, and devices generally require parts which weigh more than glasses.

They already exist. Glasses used to have heavy (at high prescription numbers) glass elements instead of plastic. HUD glasses can already fall in that weight envelope, with better weight distribution.

HUD sure, but they are dumb displays, with no useful machine perception services (ie world locked rendering.)

Basically you have about 130mw power budget. You need to do position, display, sound output, transcription, etc.

https://www.secretbatcave.co.uk/software/musing-on-openais-d... << an explanation here


World locked rendering isn't a requirement for smartglasses. Some existing ones in glasses for factor do have more limited visual positioning systems. In more obtrusive formfactors they have positioning suitable for world locked.

Of world locked rendering is just a huge waste of power at this point.

for assistant glasses to be useful, you need to know who, what, when, where for each operation that the user cares about. In the experiements that I ran, that took about 35 watts continuous on the headset (using a jetson) and at least 2 big GPU machines in the backend. This was in 2024, so perhaps its not quite as heavy now. but its nowhere near 130mw


It sounds like you’ve given up on an open web. Possibly the rational thing for you to do in your circumstances, but nonetheless a sad place we are in.


A foreign company can’t steal your IP to build out competing products?

Or use source code to find novel vulnerabilities and deeply compromise your company?


I think that’s the point


Reminds me of someone (well known in their field) who charged $0.05 for using their “contact me” page. A trivial amount for someone who genuinely wanted to contact them, but just high enough to prevent any kind of scaled abuse


If I've stumbled across what I think is a security issue in your systems, there is zero chance that I'm going to get out my credit card and pay you for the privilege of responsibly disclosing it to you. Especially if it's the vulnerability is in the site hosting the contact form.


I don’t participate in bounties at all unless I believe there is a moral obligation or I’m set to make thousands of dollars. In each case, $0.05 is fine.

For a typical commercial entity? $0.05 is not a deterrent; the companies legal team is and has been for a decade.


In most cases I'd think it's more of a deterrent for commercial entities, because spending money create complexity. Most employees are not in a position to just directly spend their organisation's money, so that $0.05 will often mean needing to get approval, purchase orders, deciding which cost centre it comes from, needing an invoice, etc, etc.

Very few people are going to invest that much effort when they're trying to do the company that they're reporting to a favour.


That actually great idea. What payment method or processor used?


It was recently edited. I assume they saw this feedback


I love that the 5.9 lives on

ursa-ag.com For (a little bit) more info


Spinning it up is not the problem. You want to spend the time to throughly test it (or have your agent swarm test it) so you don’t waste the opportunity of having HN input?

I’d be wary of a founder with such bad NIH


Fixing is now the bottleneck.

Most patches are non-trivial and then each project/maintainer has a preferred coding style, and they’re being inundated with PRs already, and don’t take kindly to slop.

LLMs can find the CVE fully zero interaction, so it scales trivially.


You should probably add a huge disclaimer that this is an untested, experimental project.

Related, a direct comparison to other sandboxes and what you offer over those would be nice


I agree to some extend. I'm using the OpenAI Codex crates for sandboxing though, which I think it's properly tested? They launched last year and iterated many times. I will add a note though, thanks!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: