How are you using Youtube if you feel like it is "barely working"?
I personally use Youtube almost exclusively for my entertainment. I am using Chromium on Raspberry Pi 5. I am running some flavor of uBlock, SponsorBlock, and some Shorts remover extension. It just works.
When you are applying from a job you are more desirable and you aren't desperate so you can take your pick. If your current job is bad then you can't really lose much.
Otherwise you need to be the person at the company who cuts through the bullshit and saves it from when the VibeCodeTechDebt is popping the industry.
Maybe I am just naive, but I don't see why taking a photo of a screen, projection, or print out would be hard. Wouldn't it just need even lighting and tripod?
Adding something like a LIDAR and somehow baking that data into the meta data could be fun
Then people will connect their fake image and LIDAR feed to where the CMOS is connected. Like always with half-baked digital attestation chains, laypersons will argue "Oh, but who's gonna do that?" and the reality is that even private modders and hackers are perfectly willing and capable of doing this and will jump on it right away, and if it's just for the fun to distribute a certified picture of an alien giving everyone the finger. Of course, tamper-proof designs would be possible, but they are extremely expensive.
On a side note, the best way to attack this particular camera is probably by attacking the software.
Don't limit your thinking to taking photos - video also works fine. It's how The Mandalorian is produced. Instead of green screens, the actors are in front of floor-to-ceiling LED screens with live rendered CGI.
In old movies, going back to the 1930s and 40s, back-projection is usually seen when characters are driving in a car, and you can usually spot it. These days, not so much.
It would be cool if this was open source because looking at the pictured this is all off the shelf hardware. I am guessing only bespoke thing here is the stl for the case
All the stuff is off the shelf. Makes it way easier to develop. There is no reason to actually use RPi, compute module or not, as a base camera board (talking from experience) other than it is super easy to start with.
I disagree. If CM5 had the ability to sleep at tiny fractions of a watt, there are really practical and usable cameras you can pull off today, even when it's not the most efficient. For all the downsides, it would more than make up in the ease-of-development department.
I believe if RPi6 adds sleep, you'd see a flurry of portable gadgets built on the platform.
Speed of development is fine for a prototype, but for an actual product it is just sloppy and wasteful. Problem isn’t even battery hungriness, but boot time. Users don’t want to wait 20-60 seconds for their camera to load an entire Linux kernel and drivers and then all the software you have gobbled together on top when you could be up and running almost instantly if you used microcontroller instead of cpu
The person who you replied to said they only reason to choose them is easiness, and you've replied saying you disagree because for all the downsides the easiness makes up for it.
Heh, few years ago I built myself a RPi Zero based camera.
I wonder how have they made the boot up fast enough to not be annoying.
I used non-real time eInk display to cut down on the battery life so I could just keep it on in my pocket while out taking pictures since it took good minute to get ready from cold boot.
Github should have "LLM" as language for repos that self report to be vibe coded or at least this kind of disclosure should be at the top of the readme not after thought.
Also the "If you're Anti-AI please don't use this." is pretty funny :D
I guess I must be "Anti-AI" when I think this kind of code is wild to rely on.
I fully support the AI self-disclosure, but what I wonder what it is about AI generated code that makes this a separate problem from any other code where you don't know the programmer's competence?
Is it because the AI can generate code that looks like it was made by a competent programmer, and is therefore deceiving you?
But whatever the reason, I think that if we use it as a way to shame the people who do tell us then we can be assured that willingness to disclose it going forward will be pretty abysmal.
I think it makes sense for stuff that is fully AI generated to the point where you commit the prompts to git. At that point, they become the real "source code" and the generated code is more of a build artifact. It makes sense to tag the language as "LLM" instead of e.g. "Python" because that's what contributors will be expected to touch when interacting with the codebase.
there is a non-zero chance that the human programmer has an interest in producing correct, secure code. there is zero chance than an LLM has the same interest. maybe those two are closer together in some cases, but not in many others.
LLMs and Humans fundamentally write different kind of code.
As humans we segment functionality and by nature avoid extra work as much as possible. Meaning reading someone else's code even if they are less competent makes sense and you can see the intention.
With LLM code everything is mixed together with no rime or reason and unless separately specified old useless functionality won't be cleaned out just because it is no longer used.
Also just the fact that people who use LLMs to vibe code bigger things usually aren't capable of reviewing what is going on in the first place, but if you are dangerous enough yourself to write a bigger piece of software you probably do know something about the problem on a deeper level and can test it.
I don't really see shaming. If you vibe code something and you are proud of it good for you, but LLMs currently are not capable of creating good software.
reply