~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

I still see that pretty frequently, but I think part of the reduction in frequency is that the community of transcribers has dwindled.

I mean… Zero?

But fuck that would be pretty sweet.

Yeah, no idea why Active is still the default.

I hate to point this out, but it’s 2026.

Everything else is great though.

familiar with the concepts here, I just I don’t understand how refractive patterns can be formed in this material with the mechanism they’re describing - its easy to etch them in, but it seems like it would lack the definition needed if it’s fluid swelling forming them via the etched patterns. I haven’t had a chance to give the paper a proper read though.

This seems like a “well duh” sorta headline. was this even a question?

To create dynamic textures in a flexible material, the researchers combined a patterning technique called electron-beam lithography, which is typically used in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, with a polymer film that swells as it absorbs water. By firing a beam of electrons at the film, they were able to adjust how much certain areas of the material would swell, creating detailed patterns that only revealed themselves when the film was wet.

To my reading it sounds like the color change is brought about by introducing raised microstructures on the material? Which… I’m not quire sure I understand how that can work, but that’s fascinating if I’m understanding it correctly. I would have expected the shapes to be too indistinct to be useful in producing that effect.

This was at CES, it’s basically one massive advertisement for trendy bs. Most of the american firms represented were there for AI and wearable tech, since the push for consumer robotics is mostly a dying fad in the US and AI is the hot new thi f.

Okay? Don’t think I disagree, but that’s also not relevant to explaining the specific reason it’s being reported less.

They absolutely aren’t as widely reported; but not because of desensitization, it’s for the same reason suicides aren’t reported. Theres been studies showing it’s “contagious” and that reducing coverage helps suppress further occurences.

While the above poster is missing the particulars, this still is unprecedented - panama and the US were at war, and Noriega surrendered to US forces before being taken to the US. As far as I’m aware, brazen kidnapping like just happened with Maduro really is a new low for the US.

Oh no, not… site info for transmission lines and high res scans of substations?

The article makes this out to be a terror threat but like guys you can just look this shit up on google maps and get the same effect, knowledge of exactly which size of shrubs are in the area isn’t exactly going to be the crucial missing part of “operation shoot the transformer”

Yes, those are all great points that make up a good portion of why they should probably revisit the design.

While noble, that was a tongue in cheek diminutive and I was including myself in that category.

Wildly appropriate username here. Also, 100% correct.

5.6 - 9 - 5.6
hip - waist - bust

If it’s good enough for girls it’s good enough for phones

It slightly does me, given that the Air was (apparently) a huge commercial flop. You’d think they’d revisit the soundly mocked design instead of recycling it, or at least change it? The renders may very well be overstating it, of course, but still it’s an odd feature to carry over.

But it’s not stupid thin, it’s got a giant lump on it?

The marketing about it being an incredibly thin phone was a misstep - it just looked absurd to have such a chunky lump stuck onto it, and it felt very much like they were attempting a have cake / eat cake situation by claiming it had incredible camera stats (which werent very good) to justify the bump on an otherwise amazingly thin phone, and then that giant electronics bump had an external lens on it too.

Had it just been an ugly phone, I doubt it would have met with anywhere near the dame criticism, but all the adcopy about how thin it was overtop of photos where you could see it had a giant lump on it felt really dishonest, and if this article is accurate it may count among the biggest apple flops ever.

(The thickness may just need to be accepted at this point. The S25 Ultra is 8.2mm, which is thinner than the Air if you include the bump. It seems like the camera wasnt the issue then, but that they hamstrung their design team with their drive for a thin phone. What elegance might even an extra millimeter of chassis space produced?)

Assuming he’s right (and boy, being sued by apple is a huge boost to his credibility), they’re keeping the stupid camera bump thing from the air???