Not quite the same as Vtuber avatars, but what you said about their software makes me think (hope) you might be able to answer a question I was wondering about the other day: is any software/models good enough yet to be able to replace the face of someone talking into a webcam with a different, photorealistic face - either that of a different existing person, or an entirely fictitious face - in real time, such that it could be used to pretend to be a different person on a live video call? Or, if not real time, how about for non-live videos, is there a tool that can do it well enough to be convincing without needing any manual editing?
And if the answer is no, how far away might it be?
(I'd be curious to play with it myself if such a thing exists and is publicly available, but the main reason I'd like to know is to keep an eye on how soon we might see faked video calls joining faked voice phone calls in the toolbox of financial scammers.)
It’s not something I’ve looked into so I’m not sure. VTuber software output can be set up to appear as a webcam which can be used in Zoom and such, so that’d be the closest that I know of.
If you see my message quickly enough (I can't remember how long the green lasts, so not sure when the deadline is for this example), here's the most recent green I saw to give you an example:
jonathan7977, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46264260 (linked directly to their comment but it shows green on the main thread also - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46263317)
Agree with you over OP - as well as Qwen there's others like Mistral, Meta's Llama, and from China there's the likes of Baidu ERNIE, ByteDance Doubao, and Zhipu GLM. Probably others too.
Even if all of these were considered worse than the "only 5" on OP's list (which I don't believe to be the case), the scene is still far too young and volatile to look at a ranking at any one point in time and say that if X is better than Y today then it definitely will be in 3 months time, yet alone in a year or two.
The person you replied to didn't explain the full concept - it's not just nail polish, it's nail polish with glitter in to create a unique pattern that the attacker wouldn't be able to replicate.
Unfortunately... I've seen a video of somebody defeating this concept before, not by trying to recreate the pattern with new nail polish and glitter, but by using a chemical (I can't remember what) that lets them, gently and very carefully, remove the whole layer of nail polish in one piece rather than having to break it apart, and then afterwards they stuck it back in place such that it looked identical. So it's not as secure an idea as it's often considered to be.
Edit: actually my memory was slightly wrong. The video I was remembering wasn't about defeating glitter in nail polish on a screw, but about "tamper proof" stickers which are made for the same purpose. I don't know for sure if nail polish could equally be defeated, but I suspect so. Here's that video (LockPickingLawyer defeating a tamper proof sticker): https://youtube.com/watch?v=xUJtqvYDnkg&
I agree that it's not currently reality and the person you replied to could have made their point by using actual examples of appalling ICE actions rather than a scenario that's currently just fantasy.
That said, it's not just "someone posted an idiotic idea on Twitter". The idea of stripping people of their citizenship has literally been suggested by the current president to a press gaggle, and that's not a one off random statement it follows years of things like prominent political voices suggesting that certain Muslim members of congress should be deported despite their having been born in the US...
As to the technical difficulties of passing a constitutional amendment, I agree it's hard to imagine that happening. Depressingly though it's less hard to imagine the president signing an executive order telling ICE to go against that part of the constitution, followed by one or both of ICE actions outpacing judicial ability to enforce the constitution, and/or judges ruling in favour of ICE being allowed to ignore the constitution.
These are possibilities that, if suggested 30 years ago would sound like crazy conspiracy theory territory, but in 2025 they're actual plausible scenarios looking at the coming months, yet alone years. I wish this was just scare mongering, but the truth is if you don't think this is possible then you haven't been following US politics closely enough - from the words of Trump and his team, such as Stephen Miller, to the actions of agencies such as ICE and the FBI, to rulings of the Supreme Court such as the one giving Trump unqualified immunity that anything he does as a work act rather than a personal one can't be treated as illegal, even if it goes against the constitution.
> "many interesting tricks to not work a lot and still make money."
As someone not very familiar with Switzerland I'm curious what you mean by this, as I assume from your wording you don't simply mean generous benefits available to unemployed and low wage people?
You're creating a straw man (perhaps accidentally) which makes your argument seem such stronger than it is against the actual proposals.
Neither the comment you replied to, nor the proposed law, suggest the limit should be solely government bonds, which is what you're arguing against in your comment, they both say government bonds OR publicly traded diverse stock funds, for example ETFs.
Maybe you still believe that's restrictive enough to be a problem, but considering many people, even the likes of Warren Buffet, consider the best investment advice to be either "just invest in ETF/funds that track the whole market" or "just invest in a mix of ETFs/funds and also some bonds", while nobody considers "just invest in government bonds" to be good advice, your argument would be a hell if a lot weaker if actually applied to what IS being proposed rather than pretending that the proposal only allows investing in government bonds.
They never intended to show anything to the right of the doorframe on TV, so there's a random sign on the wall and a big hole in the wall (which makes sense if you are a camera crew wanting to film a sitcom in the apartment, that doesn't make so much sense in the fictional world that anyone would have a big rectangle cut out of the wall between their apartment and the hallway).
I might be wrong but I don't remember the original framing ever showing the sign, so I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it was there ready for them to move in shot if they ever wanted it, but that as seen in this image it's not supposed to be on camera
In that case your memory (or perhaps just attention to detail when watching) is better than mine, and I withdraw my previous belief! Thanks for the correction
FYI, an easier way to search in pages in Safari is to just type what you want to search for in the address bar, and then at the bottom of the list of suggestions (you may need to scroll it down) you can tap "On this page".
I just noticed it randomly many years ago, I don't remember the occasion but I guess I was scrolling trying to find a page in history lazily and noticed it at the bottom.
It's an example that sums up feature discoverability (well, lack of) on iPhones - there are so many things like this, that are really useful to know if you find out about them but the only way to find out is luck or having a friend tell you. Occasionally the official Apple "Tips" app has useful stuff, but not much.
I actually have a thing in my family Signal chat of every few weeks sharing a new random iPhone tip, as I'm by far the nerdiest in the group. Maybe I should collate them all into a "hard to discover Tips" blog and share on HN...
Thanks for not jumping to self promotion, but I'm actually curious to see how you did it - would you mind sharing a link?
reply