"Rabbit is no longer manufacturing the R1 (hardware), and the existing stock is dwindling"

https://www.wired.com/story/rabbit-r1-os3-jesse-lyu/

Yes it must be obvious for Ukraine to use people who are already in Russia to help with local sabotage. It could be as as crude as putting rocks on a rail line or as simple as floating toy balloons across a strategic installation until the local Russian defenses get tired of the false alarms, stop paying attention and don't see an incoming drone.

It's surprising that there are apparently no strong claims of this from either side, but especially from the Russian side. I don't agree that Russia has nothing to gain from arresting people for such activities. Wouldn't it deter others?

Video, showing how random Meta employees don't like slightly creepy stranger obviously using Meta glasses to record them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o

Meta allegedly took down the video when it was uploaded to their own platforms.

https://github.com/ApelegHQ/ts-cms-ep-sfx

https://web.archive.org/web/20260924072813/https://www.cnbct...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/she-lost-her-sight-h...

A few questions....

The paper under review at Nature [0] makes it clear, by omission, that Lucy Ackman could not consent to this therapy. The only response the doctors describe from her is a temporary increase in the degree of her pupillary response to light after the therapy.

She suffered a brain injury (caused by a hemorrhage), which has badly impaired numerous critical functions. Which implies that a large area of her brain was affected. But they are not injecting mitochondria into her brain. Why?

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02616-z

edit: there are other reports which make it look like her condition has improved lots, better than the Washington Post described. The only sources are on twitter, so it's impossible to post a stable and freely accessible link here

Not only LLM services.

That is in fact the kind of process I was suggesting. Auctioning the art would generate income; Destroying the art destroys income.

The section in question is not a Grade I preserved building, it's Grade II, which is a significantly less stringent standard. That building is in fact a quasi-brutalist tower built in 1968[0], adjacent to a much older building.

The site of the mural is visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Queen%27...

Ironically, in that picture you can see that the wall just above the mural was already badly defaced by the installation and removal of security cameras during several decades.

The scars and drilled holes from old, removed cameras and wiring are still plainly visible. Contrary to its rapid reaction to the mural, the government has made no attempt to repair this self-inflicted damage, which calls into question the whole argument about protecting the building

(You can verify that the damage has been there for decades, by looking at older Google Streetview pictures back to 2008).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Courts_of_Justice_(Banks...

I didn't mention it only because it's difficult to attribute a monetary value to "conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art", while it's easy to cite the sale value of previous works.

The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street."

Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has probably already cost the public a few million £, not just £150k

[0] https://www.dawsonsauctions.co.uk/news-item/how-much-is-an-o...

'Main focus' would be better in this situation

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819977

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

I'll try my best to explain, according to what I understand:

An electric field can re-orientate the liquid crystal molecules, which changes the speed of light within the liquid crystal, and thereby changes the liquid crystal's refractive index.

This changes the angle of light as it passes from other material (such as air or plastic or glass) into the liquid crystal, and that change of angle changes the focal point of the light ray.

That effect provides the ability to focus incoming light, controlled by electricity.

That's probably not exactly right, but it's better than the explanation in the original story, which is non-existent and also has a very confused reference to ITO (indium tin oxide), like you've noticed.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...