thank you sire, I banished the authwall iframe, removed the gradient and made it scrollable only to realize the article was cut for public in the first place. I wonder how archive.ph got the full version automatically...
I think love has to be a state that can be worked towards. We wonder the earth (with apps) looking for that perfect person, today. But did noone fall in love in the past, when you had to make do with people from your own village?
If I lived in a village of a few hundred people I could be satisfied that my spouse was the best match I could possibly hope for, right? Say half the village is men, then a quarter is too young or too old, then there's just a handful who fall in my range of economic status and attractiveness, and I could be as happy as one could hope with any of them.
I live within reasonable driving distance of probably a literal thousand other people in my age range and of similar attractiveness to me. Whoever I stick with, someone else will be better in one way and worse in another. There might be a hundred dimensions on which to measure someone. Hence my current vacation from monogamy.
I think love, as in the feeling of limerence, obsession, desire to be with someone, desire to "get" something from somebody attractive, is easy to cultivate and always has been. I love someone who said she "falls in love with anyone who makes eye contact with her long enough". Ironically, her definition of love doesn't include texting me every month.
But love as in, doing hard marriage shit for decades until one of you outlives the other... I thought I felt that when I was first with my ex-spouse, now I believe I may be happier if I never feel that.
Different types of love. One is the honeymoon period style love after having met the person once or a few times, the other is the richer, deeper love between beings who know each other well for decades.
It is much easier to fall in love with people you have spent a lot of time with. Same thing with friendship, and I guess rivalry too. The keyword is "propinquity".
In a small village, it is natural, less so in a busy city where you meet with a lot of people, but don't really spend time with them.
I skimmed the article, so maybe that's why I didn't get it. But isn't the headline misleading? They didn't fall in love and there is no indication that doing all of what they did would make someone fall in love - that otherwise wouldn't have in the first place, no?
> You’re probably wondering if he and I fell in love. Well, we did. Although it’s hard to credit the study entirely (it may have happened anyway), the study did give us a way into a relationship that feels deliberate. We spent weeks in the intimate space we created that night, waiting to see what it could become.
The last one occasionally fails to show ads due to some javascript error (visible in the console). The same error was also observed on a few other pages with the "you may also like" footer, so my guess is that some ads were supposed to be visible on many pages, but were accidentally hidden due to some configuration issue.
It boggles my mind how valuable advertising is. Who is clicking on that shit and presumably buying those products? I just cannot believe that there were actually $100k/day worth of actual ad conversions, no matter the player count. Yet the money flows so I guess people really do click on that shit and then buy that shit.
When I say love, I mean genuinely seek them out. When I was younger, there was no internet in my house, and adverts were the opportunity to step away from the TV and do something else. But I worked as a babysitter in December a few years ago and things have certainly changed a lot.
They would turn on the TV just to watch ads to "find out what I want for Christmas" then turn it off again when the advertising finished and ask for Netflix. When playing games on an iPad or laptop, they would click every ad to open it in a new tab, meaning they could browse products after they were done playing.
The first couple of times I told the kids not to do that, and reported back to the parents after. But turns out most parents liked this behaviour...it made Christmas shopping easier, because their kids would make a list of cheaper things aimed at them, rather than all asking for expensive iPads and PlayStations.
I have to agree $100k/day seems close to unbelievably high, so I had to do some napkin math. In short, it seems it may be possible.
If the avg player dies 10 times, and the ads shown had $.5 CPM, then to make a dollar you'd need only 200 players. So to make $100k/day you'd need 20M daily actives, which is very high but it was really popular around those days.
Is 20M daily actives possible? Yes, because if the average play session is 15 minutes, with that many players you'd have ~200k concurrent players. There's currently a game on Steam called "banana" where you just click on bananas, and that one has 292k concurrents. There are also several Roblox games with that many concurrents, so it checks out.
What we really need for this is on-screen cameras, so you can actually look someone in the eye. Now, you only look them in the eye when you look away from them at the camera. And when you look them in the eye you're just looking at their mouth.
Ultimately it will likely be easier to simulate eye-contact with live restyling – that is, synthesizing the view from a virtual 'camera' using one or more other cameras nearby – than physically hide a true camera inside a monitor. (Simulation could also signal eye-contact with any point on the screen, not just a single camera location.)
Nvidia, Apple, & others already have software for this, which will only get better.
We’ve needed this – easy, direct eye contact – for quite a long time. I keep waiting for someone to develop it. I think that Apple has a relevant patent, but I don’t know how much content is in the patent, and I’ve never heard that Apple has done anything with it.
The claim why these aren't adopted is that they aren't high enough quality. Why not include both a standard and undersceen front-facing camera and get the best of both worlds? Could use the under-screen camera for video chat and the standard one for everything else. Or even use some AI algorithm to merge the data from the standard camera with the under-screen one to increase quality.
The other problem is that having an under-display camera doesn't stop everyone else's eyes from pointing in the wrong direction, so even if you prioritize eye contact you'd also have to convince all your friends to, as well.
Earliest expected release for an Under Display Camera (UDC) iPhone right now is iPhone 18 in 2026:
>According to The Elec, LG Innotek has entered the preliminary development of the UDC, which sits under the display and does not result in a visible hole in the panel when the camera is not in use...
>Apple will then adopt the UDC in 2027's "Pro" iPhone models, according to respected analyst Ross Young of research firm Display Supply Chain Consultant
To the people worried about their data being sent to google or whatever (I'm not sure what they're actually worried about) -- the extraction of your eyes is done client side, using a seemingly very well made ML model running on Tensorflow which fits in under 15mb.
The feed of your camera is transmitted "directly" to the person you're looking at (well, no, not really directly, it uses WebRTC, so your data passes through Neal's TURN server, but do you really think Neal wants to take care of properly storing your data and handing it off to advertisers?)
So even after this thought process, it comes down to "do you trust the author" (just like before it)... Not unreasonable to answer either way if you ask me.
Your browser has developer tools which provide views into transmitted files, network requests, etc. You poke around and see how it is implemented using the tools.
we meet up on occasion to kick around ideas[1] - we're both in nyc and the 'people doing creative tech stuff in nyc' world is not that big. I think(?) we first met right after I made stranger video; we've batted around ideas about it for a while. Pretty sure this idea was from him!
There's probably 0 overlap in the codebase - 100% (or close to it) of the code is from Neal (the only code I wrote for this was a very early prototype that cropped out just the eyes, instead of the bar you see now). I sent him a couple of snippets from my codebase early on but mostly just gave pointers on my tech stack / chatted about some of the problems I ran into. Given the size of Neal's audience the default scale for a project he launches is pretty big!
Anyway, mostly wanted to clarify that the similarities between this and stranger video are intentional :)
[1] this is where the idea for one million checkboxes actually came from!
It's the eyebrow-inclination detection that really makes this a work of art. Being able to turn a serious stare into a serious aspect ratio is power I didn't know I needed.
For the shy and curious, you can use OBS as a virtual webcam. This is a good option. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQHJX9rMp8. Guy keeps winking at me and then rolling his eyes when the video doesn't respond.
Yes, inverse profiling works this way. A group with known individuals communicates constantly with someone who ain't using FB or Insta. You still know this person quite well, easily identifiable, maybe lacking some information but more than needed.
This is also why privacy has been a game over for decades. Ten years ago or so, friends boasted that they don't use Gmail due to privacy concerns but happily email folks with Gmail accounts.
One group picture is sufficient, you can work from there.
One pertinent difference is that a web property may correlate your captured biometric data with whatever they get out of your connection, making entity resolution much easier and more valuable.
ELI5 when you visit online they have a handle on you.
This site wants to share your cookies to at least 662 “venders” and they are being dishonest with the “legitimate interest” scam. The creator clearly does not care about nor respect their users/visitors.
It's so wild to me that people tolerate this. I just close the tab or 'reader' whenever I see that type of thing, but I know very few others who do the same.
I mean, if a website claims to have tens if not close to a hundred "legitimate interest" cookies I'm reasonably sure they are living of wildly invasive ad tracking. I immediately close these websites just as you do.
It would be swell if more of the web was made by passionate people to share knowledge for free. I know this is a privileged attitude as creating content takes time which is not free. But some of the best web sites are the ones without monetisation. We need a better monetisation system for the web that is based on people paying for content instead of people being sold as user data.
