Google's removal of num=100 parameter last month makes it harder for third party tools (e.g. chatgpt, perplexity) to access beyond the first 10 results
This is incredibly hurting the visibility of any new emergent site as we can already see in the data
One thing worth stressing is that the witness + executor layer is the critical trust boundary here.
In classic Ethereum, bugs are noisy: if one client diverges, other clients complain, and consensus fails until fixed.
In zk Ethereum, bugs can be silent: the proof validates the wrong execution and everyone downstream accepts it as truth.
I mean that the witness is like a transcript of everything the EVM touched while running a block: contract code, storage slots, gas usage, etc. so you can replay the block later using only this transcript, without needing the full Ethereum state.
For security, that witness ideally needs to be cryptographically bound to the block (e.g., via Merkle commitments), so no one can tamper with it.
The executor is the piece that replays that transcript deterministically. If it does so correctly, then you can generate a zk proof saying “this block really executed as Ethereum says it should.” But correctness here isn’t binary, it means bit-for-bit agreement with the Yellow Paper and all EIPs, including tricky cases like precompile gas rules. So the danger is in the details. If the witness omits even one corner case, or the executor diverges subtly, the zk system can still generate a perfectly valid proof, but of the wrong thing. zk proofs don’t check what you proved, only that you proved it consistently. In today’s consensus model, client bugs show up quickly when nodes disagree.
So while the compilation and toolchain work here is impressive, the real challenge is making sure the witness and executor are absolutely faithful to Ethereum semantics, with strong integrity guarantees. Otherwise you risk building cryptographic certainty, but about the wrong computation. This makes the witness/executor correctness layer the single point of failure in my view where human fallibility can undermine mathematical guarantees, looking forward to understand how this problem will be tackled
I guess one approach would be to have multiple independently-developed provers, and use them all for each proof. You'd spend more computation doing proofs but you wouldn't slow the network down since you could do it in parallel.
The comment you're replying to is worried about the opposite case: where the proof is good, but the computation being proved is faulty. The analog would be to have the same prover prove execution of multiple node implementations.
You have more control, in theory, on a cellphone, and so do people around you. With the glasses you really have no way to say if they are listening or watching what you see. The phone has most of the time the sensors partially blocked by a bag or a pocket so it really can't be compared with eyewear.
1.The glasses have cameras and microphones capable of recording people nearby often without their knowledge (e.g. the recording indicator can be subtle or blocked, “GhostDot” stickers are being sold to block the LED indicator light so others won’t see when recording is happening)
2. As I remember Meta has changed its privacy policy so that voice recordings are stored in the cloud (up to one year) and “Hey Meta” voice-activation with camera may be enabled by default, meaning more frequent analysis of what the camera sees to train AI models.
3.The possibility that anytime someone might be recording you wearing glasses that look like ordinary sunglasses can create a chilling effect: people may feel uneasy, censor themselves, avoid public spaces, etc.
the fact that surveillance capitalism, or we should rather say surveillance oligarchy, is here does not mean we have to support it going forward, it can only be worse if nobody reacts
As opposed to now? Everywhere you go in public, people are holding their phone up watching tiktok or such. There's no recording indicator on phones, they could be recording you.
Heck, go to a tourist location, like a famous area of london or tokyo or new york, and there'll be dozens of wannabe influencers holding up gopros on selfie sticks.
It's too late. It's already happening. If it has a chilling effect, we're already chilled.
> wannabe influencers holding up gopros on selfie sticks
I think there's a huge difference in how one perceives these as a privacy/self-censoring risk. Yes, a bunch of tourists with their gopros might catch me in the background, but I think it's reasonable to assume that their intended target is themselves, and catching me in the background is incidental. If someone is recording with their glasses, basically by definition their target is not themselves (though perhaps a companion?), and it's more likely that I am their target.
Holding a phone in front of your face in public is so normalized at this point that targeted recording is not a matter of hardware, but of someone wanting to do it.
As you point out, most influencer-types aren't aimed at you.
That generalizes pretty well, with or without glasses, no one cares about recording you, other than incidentally as part of the background
If someone does want to target recording you, i.e. you're a semi-famous idol or such, they'll just pretend to watch tiktoks on their phone and record without an indicator, right? At least the glasses have an indicator, unlike phones.
I think the angle that a phone is held at is a reliable determinant of intent. People look down at their phones to read the screen. People hold their phones up vertically to record. The difference seems immediately apparent to me.
why while he seemingly wish for a katechon (restraint) his portfolio appears to be accelerating concentration of power instead in the very same way as the antichrist in his view would do?
