It was nagarjuna cement

https://youtu.be/95-KgsbjZ_s

Apparently she also founded an AI based movie studio which worked on the movie Uncanny Valley

This reads like a middle school research paper. I couldn’t imagine not feeling immense embarrassment if I submitted this to a court.

Thank you for sharing this. Letting people in is really tough. I’m currently dealing with the death of a co-worker this week and I’m infinitely grateful to my partner for taking care of me. It took several days for me to be able to form any thoughts about it, and it’s lead to being able to open up about other trauma. We’ve been together for 5ish years and there is still plenty that I never brought up because it never seemed like a good time or that there was any reason to, so I guess I can work on that.

Really feeling this one today 💗

It looks like they didn’t even need to sort it that way to show a trend, I was curious so I re-sorted it.

Gotcha, yeah unfortunately FDM ceramic still has crazy high spool costs so I don’t think it really puts it into the same ballpark as using simpler materials. We’re talking like $500 a spool, just one printed piece like you see in the picture looks like it would take an entire spool or more and could be the better part of $1K. I’m comparing to Mossy Earth’s strategy of binding together metal rods and coating with sand, which after labor lands at $26 per structure.

Yep that’s correct, with ceramic you don’t end up with any plastic in the final product. I’m more familiar with SLA ceramic printers which use a resin, and FDM metal printing that uses a kind of wax, also burned out in a tube furnace.

That was my first thought too but apparently it’s ceramic 3D printing (the only ceramic printers I’ve seen are like $MM). I wonder how that can possibly scale to be as cheap as what mossy earth is doing by epoxying sand onto a metal frame and metal twist tying coral fragments onto it.

Harvard Law Paid $27 for a Copy of Magna Carta. Surprise! It’s an Original. Stephen Castle 9 - 11 minutes

Two British academics discovered that a “copy” of the medieval text, held in Harvard Law School’s library for 80 years, is one of seven originals dating from 1300. A large, framed, yellowing document. A “copy” of Magna Carta owned by Harvard Law School was, in fact, an extraordinarily rare original from 1300.Credit…Lorin Granger/Harvard Law School

May 15, 2025 Updated 2:23 a.m. ET

Bought for $27.50 after World War II, the faint, water stained manuscript in the library of Harvard Law School had attracted relatively little attention since it arrived there in 1946.

That is about to change.

Two British academics, one of whom happened on the manuscript by chance, have discovered that it is an original 1300 version — not a copy, as long thought — of Magna Carta, the medieval document that helped establish some of the world’s most cherished liberties.

It is one of just seven such documents from that date still in existence.

“I never in all my life expected to discover a Magna Carta,” said David Carpenter, a professor of medieval history at King’s College London, describing the moment in December 2023 when he made the startling find.

The manuscript’s value is hard to estimate, although it is fair to say that its price tag of under $30 (about $500 today) must make it one of the bargains of the last century. A 710-year-old version of Magna Carta was sold in 2007 for $21.3 million.

Image

A man looks on as a woman arranges a sheath of parchment on a wooden table. Lights and equipment are also present. To help authenticate the document, researchers photographed it under ultraviolet light and then subjected it to various levels of spectral imaging, a technique which can enhance aspects of historical documents undetectable to the human eye.Credit…M.B. Toth/R.B. Toth Associates

Nicholas Vincent, a professor of medieval history at the University of East Anglia, in eastern England, helped authenticate the text. He noted that the document, which bound the nation’s rulers to acting within the law, had resurfaced at a time when Harvard has come under extraordinary pressure from the Trump administration.

“In this particular instance we are dealing with an institution that is under direct attack from the state itself, so it’s almost providential it has turned up where it has at this particular time,” he said. “You and I both know what that is!”

Providential or not, the discovery happened largely by chance.

Professor Carpenter was at home in Blackheath, south east London, plowing his way through Harvard Law School’s digital images as research for a book when he opened a file named HLS MS 172 — the catalog name for Harvard Law School Manuscript 172.

“I get down to 172 and it’s a single parchment sheet of Magna Carta,” he said. “And I think ‘Oh my god, this looks to me for all the world — because I read it — like an original.’”

Professor Carpenter emailed Professor Vincent, who was, at the time, at work in a library in Brussels. “David sent it with a message saying, ‘What do you think that is?’” said Professor Vincent. “I wrote back within seconds, saying, ‘You and I both know what that is!’”

Image

Professor David Carpenter of King’s College London.Credit…King’s College London

Image

Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia.Credit…Phil Barnes Photography

The two academics were able to confirm the manuscript’s authenticity after Harvard Law School photographed it under ultraviolet light and then subjected it to various levels of spectral imaging, a technique which can enhance aspects of historical documents undetectable to the human eye.

Comparing it with six previously known originals from 1300, the professors found that the text matched, as did the dimensions — 489 mm x 473mm. The handwriting used in the manuscript, with a large capital “E” at the start in “Edwardus” and elongated letters in the first line, also tallied.

“It’s the best sort of thing that can happen to a librarian,” said Amanda Watson, assistant dean at Harvard Law School’s library. “This is our daily work to digitalize things, to preserve things, to save things, to open things up for people like David Carpenter.”

Image

The top left corner of a framed, yellowing piece of parchment. The text is largely out of focus or illegible, but the first line contains an extra-large “E,” and then a line of large letters. The 1300 version of Magna Carta was issued by King Edward I, the grandson of the monarch who originally issued the charter in 1215. The large “E” at the start of “Edwardus” can be seen in this photo of the document.Credit…Lorin Granger/Harvard Law School

Ms. Watson said that the document itself had sometimes been put on display, but, as part of a large collection, it was not kept out permanently. The library has yet to decide whether it will now be made available to the public, but Ms. Watson said she “can’t imagine” that it would be sold.

“In the United States having things that are seven hundred years old is special,” added Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law and chair of the Harvard Law School library. “The law of the land”

Magna Carta — “Great Charter” in Latin — has been used to justify many different causes over the centuries, sometimes on shaky historical ground. But it has evolved into a global symbol of the importance of fundamental freedoms, including habeas corpus. By limiting the power of the monarch, it came to represent the right to protection against arbitrary and unjust rule.

One of its most famous passages states: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

First issued in 1215, it put into writing a set of concessions won by rebellious barons from a recalcitrant King John of England — or Bad King John, as he became known in folklore.

He later revoked the charter, but his son, Henry III, issued amended versions, the last one in 1225, and Henry’s son, Edward I, in turn confirmed the 1225 version in 1297 and again in 1300.

The document influenced the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights includes several provisions that are thought to descend from Magna Carta.

Image

A man in glasses sits at a desk with two laptops in front of him, and two large screens on the wall behind, all of which are displaying images. Few doubt the significance of Magna Carta in the evolution of Western notions of rights and freedoms.Credit…Debora Mayer/Harvard Weissman Preservation Center

There are 25 original manuscripts of Magna Carta in all, produced at various times. Including the one at Harvard, only three are outside Britain.

Harvard Law School bought its version from a London legal book dealer, Sweet & Maxwell, which had in turn purchased the manuscript in December 1945 from Sotheby’s, the auctioneers.

In the 1945 auction catalog it was listed as a copy and with the wrong date (1327) and was sold for £42 — about a fifth of the average annual income in the United Kingdom at the time — on behalf of Forster Maynard, an Air Vice-Marshal who had served as a fighter pilot in World War I.

Air Vice-Marshal Maynard inherited it from the family of Thomas and John Clarkson, who were leading campaigners in Britain against the slave trade from the 1780s onward.

Professor Vincent believes the document could be a lost Magna Carta that was once issued to the former parliamentary borough of Appleby-in-Westmorland, in the north of England, and which was last mentioned in print in 1762.

While it is undoubtedly famous, many Britons seem to have a hazy knowledge of the document. Former prime minister David Cameron was famously unable to translate the term Magna Carta when asked by David Letterman on his late-night talk show in 2012.

But few doubt its significance in the evolution of Western notions of rights and freedoms. With some of those now more under threat, Professor Vincent said the discovery at Harvard was timely.

Magna Carta, he said, places the king under the rule of law. The “head of state cannot simply go against somebody because he doesn’t like them, he has to do it using the law,” he said.

The text of the charter is incorporated within 17 state constitutions of the United States, he added, “so there is more of it in American state law than there is in the U.K.”

Professor Vincent likened the discovery to happening upon a masterpiece by Johannes Vermeer, the Dutch artist, only 36 of whose paintings are known to have survived. “He is regarded as the rarest of all the great masters, so there are significantly fewer of these than there are of Vermeers,” Professor Vincent said.

Both he and Professor Carpenter plan to visit Harvard Law School next month to see and touch the document for the first time, a moment that Professor Vincent predicted would be “emotional.”

Image

A table with a document, illuminated in purple U.V. light. Using the images from the ultraviolet photography and spectral imaging, Professors Carpenter and Vincent determined the copy in Harvard Law School’s library matched the other six previously known originals from 1300.Credit…M.B. Toth/R.B. Toth Associates

Stephen Castle is a London correspondent of The Times, writing widely about Britain, its politics and the country’s relationship with Europe.

It gets really addicting, and it’s definitely easy to get carried away micromapping areas you know well. I try to keep in mind that lots of micromapping doesn’t really help the average user (aside from sidewalks and kerb cuts, lots of stuff I mapped like light poles just don’t show up in most maps anyway), and probably the best way to get the biggest impact with the least amount of work is by plotting the locations of shops and adding details like websites and opening hours since most people use maps for navigating to POIs. Even if you can’t add any details, just plotting a pin with the shop name and type still helps a lot as people using streetcomplete will be asked about further details when they are in the area where they can pop into the shop and check those things. It’s a really cool way to have a symbiotic community of people plotting stuff from home using satellite imagery and people on the ground surveying and filling in more details.

I recently finished mapping over 500 individual parking spaces of a parking lot on openstreetmaps, including every disabled space, 99 numbered reserved spaces, curb cuts, pedestrian access aisles, fire hydrants, grassy medians, trees, flowerbeds, and light poles.

It’s actually been really good to get out of the house because I needed to check the numberings and exact placements of various things, to the determent of my wfh day job.

What model size did you run on your laptop? I have an Intel Nuc with an i7 and I run various models on CPU (it doesn’t have a dedicated GPU) and while I can’t run stuff larger than ~14b or so, models up to around ~7b aren’t too slow. If I try to run a 32b then I get a similar experience to you. I tend not to go below 4b because that’s when it starts being dumb and not following instructions well, so just depends on how complex your task is.

Immich is pretty good for this if you take pictures at each location. It has a global map that shows all your photos with a heatmap-style display and a drawer that shows a grid of the photos within your viewport as you can and zoom around. It doesn’t seem like you can view a specific album on the map currently but you can at least filter the map to favorites or a date range.

What are the apps that you would miss? I basically only use my NC as a Google drive and docs replacement, so all it has to do is store docx files and let me edit them on desktop or mobile without being glitchy and I’ve really wanted to consider OCIS or similar.

That second requirement for me seems hard because of how complex office suites are, but NC is driving me to my wit’s end with how slow and error prone it is, and how glitchy the NC office UI is (like glitches when selecting text or randomly scrolling you to the beginning).

I think you are misunderstanding my mention of C2PA, which I only mentioned offhand as an example of prior art when it comes to digital media provenance that takes AI into account. If C2PA is indeed not about making a go/no-go determination of AI presence, then I don’t think it’s relevant to what OP is asking about because OP is asking about an “anti-ai proof”, and I don’t think a chain of trust that needs to be evaluated on an individual basis fulfills that role. I also did disclaim my mention of C2PA - that I haven’t read it and don’t know if it overlaps at all with this discussion. So in short I’m not misunderstanding C2PA because I’m not talking about C2PA, I just mentioned it as an interesting project that is tangentially related so that nobody feels the need to reply with “but you forgot about C2PA”.

I’m more interested in the high-level: “can we solve this by guaranteeing the origin” question, and I think the answer to that is yes

I think you are glossing over the possibility that someone uses Photoshop to maliciously edit a photo, adding Adobe to the chain of trust. If instead you are suggesting that only individuals sign the chain of trust, then there is no way anyone will bother looking up each random person who edited an image (let alone every photographer) so they can check if it’s trustworthy. Again I don’t think that lines up with what OP is asking for. In addition, we already have a way to verify the origin of an image - just check the source AP posting an image on their site is currently equivalent to them signing it, so the only difference is some provenance, which I don’t think provides any value unless the edit metadata is secured as I mention below. If you can’t find the source then it’s the same as an image without a signature chain. This system can’t doesn’t force unverified images to have an untrustworthy signature chain so you will mostly either have images with trustworthy signature chains that also include a credit that you can manually check or images without a source or a signature. The only way it can be useful is if checking the signature chain is easier than checking the website of the credited source, which if it requires the user to make the same determination I don’t think it will move the needle besides making it marginally easier for those who would have checked for the source anyway to check faster.

I don’t think we need any sort of controls on defining the types of edits at all.

I disagree, the entire idea of the signature chain appears to be for the purpose of identifying potentially untrustworthy edits. If you can’t be sure that the claimed edit is accurate, then you are deciding entirely based on the identity of the signatory - in which case storing the edit note is moot because it can’t be used to narrow down which signature could be responsible for an AI modification.

If AP said they cropped the image, and if I trust AP, then I trust them as a link in the chain

The thing about this is that if you trust AP to be honest about their edits, then you likely already trust them to verify the source - this is something they already do so it seems the rest of the chain is moot. To use your own example, I can’t see a world where we regularly need to verify that AP didn’t take the image that was edited by Infowars posted on facebook, crop it, and sign it with AP’s key. That is just about the only situation where I see the value in having the whole chain, but that’s not solving a problem we currently have. If you were worried that a trusted source would get their image from an untrusted source, they wouldn’t be a trusted source. And if a trusted source posts an image where it gets compressed or shared, it’ll be on their official account or website which already vouches for it.

Worrying about MITM attacks is not a reasonable argument against using a technology. By the same token, we shouldn’t use TLS for banking because it can be compromised

The difference with TLS is that the malicious parties are not in ownership of the endpoints, so it’s not at all comparable. In the case of a malicious photographer, the malicious party owns the hardware to be exploited. If the malicious party has physical access to the hardware it’s almost always game over.

Absolutely, but you can prevent someone from taking a picture of an AI image and claiming that someone else took the picture. As with anything else, it comes down to whether I trust the photographer, rather than what they’ve produced.

Yes and this is exactly the problem, it comes down to whether you trust the photographer, meaning each user needs to research the source and make up their own mind. The system would have changed nothing from now, because in both cases you need to check the source and decide for yourself. You might argue that at least with a chain of signatures the source is attached to the image, but I don’t think in practice that will change anything since any fake image will lack a signature just as how many fake images are not credited. The question OP seems to be asking is about a system that can make that determination because leaving it up to the user to check is exactly the problem we currently have.

I think you might be assuming that most of the problems I listed are about handling the trust of the software that made each modification - in case you just read the first part of my comment. And I’m not sure if changing the signature to a chain really addresses any of them besides having a bigger “hit list” of companies to scrutinize.

For reference, the issues I listed included:

1. Trusted image editors adding or replacing a signature cannot do so securely without a TPM - without it someone can memory edit the image buffer without the program knowing and have a “crop” edit signed by Adobe which replaces the image with an AI one
2. Needs a system to grade the “types” of edits in a foolproof way - so that you can’t bypass having the image marked as “user imported an external image” by painting the imported images pixels over the original using an automated tool for example
3. Need to prevent MITM of camera sensor data that can make the entire system moot
4. You cannot prevent someone from taking a picture of a screen with Ai image

There are plenty of issues with how even a trusted piece of software allows you to edit the picture, since trusted software would need to be able to distinguish between a benign edit and one adding AI. I don’t think a signature chain changes much since the chain just increases the number of involved parties that need to be vetted without changing any of the characteristics of what you are allowed to do.

I think the main problem with the signature chain is that is that the chain by itself doesn’t allow you to attribute and particular part to and party in the chain. You will be able to see all the responsible parties but not have any way of telling which company in the chain could be responsible for signing a modification. If the chain contains Canon, gimp, and Adobe, there is no way to tell if the AI added to the image was because the canon camera was hacked or if gimp or Adobe has a workaround that allowed someone to replace the image with an AI one. I think in the case of a malicious edit, it makes less sense to allow the picture to retain the canon signature if the entire image could be changed by Adobe, essentially putting Canon’s signature reputation on the line for stuff they might not be responsible for.

This would also bring a similar problem to the one I mentioned where there would need to be a level of trust for each piece of editing software - and you might have a world where gimp is out because nobody trusts it, so you can say goodbye to using any smaller developers image editor if you want your image to stay verified. That could be a nightmare if providers such as Facebook or others wanted to use the signature chain to prevent untrusted uploads, it would penalize using anything but Adobe products for example.

In short I don’t think a chain changes much besides increasing the number of parties you have to evaluate complicating validation, without helping you attribute malicious edit to any party. And now you have a situation where gimp for example might be blamed for being in the chain when the vulnerability was from Adobe or Canon. My understanding of the question is that the goal is an automatic final determination of authenticity, which I think is infeasible. The chain you’ve proposed sounds closer to a “web of trust” style system where every user needs to create their own trust criteria and decide for themselves what to trust, which I think defeats the purpose of preventing gullible people from falling for AI images.

I didn’t think this is really feasible.

I’ve heard of efforts (edit: this is the one https://c2pa.org/ - I haven’t read it at all so I don’t know if it overlaps with my ideas below at all) to come up with a system that digitally signs images when they are taken using a tamper resistant TPM or secure enclave built into cameras, but that doesn’t even begin to address the pile of potential attack vectors and challenges.

For example, if only cameras can sign images, and the signature is only valid for that exact image, then editing the image in any way makes the signature invalid. So then you’d probably need image editors to be able to make signatures or re-sign the edit, assuming it’s minor (crop, color correct) but you’d need a way to prevent rogue/hacked image editors from being able to re-sign an edit that adds AI elements. So unless you want image editors to require you to have a TPM that can verify your edit is minor / not adding AI, then the image editor would be able to forge a signature on an AI edit.

Assuming you require every image editor to run on a device with a TPM in order to re-sign edits, there’s also the problem of how you decide which edits are ok and which are too much. You probably can’t allow compositing with external images unless they are also signed, because you could just add an AI image into an originally genuine image. You also probably couldn’t stop someone from using macros to paint every pixel of an AI image on top of a genuine image using the pencil tool at 1px brush size, so you would need some kind of heuristic running inside the TPM or TEE that can check how much the image changed - and you’d have to prevent someone from also doing this piecewise (like only 1/10 of overlaying an AI image at a time so that the heuristic won’t reject the edit), so you might need to keep the full original image embedded in the signed package so the final can be checked against the original to see if it was edited too much

You might be able to solve some of the editing vulnerabilities by only allowing a limited set of editing operations (like maybe only crop/rotate or curves), if you did that then you could not require a TPM to edit if the editing software doesn’t actually create a new signature but just saves the edits as a list of changes along side the original signed image. Maybe a system like this where you can only crop/rotate and color correct images would work for stock photos or news, but that would be super limiting for everyone else so I can’t see it really taking off.

And if that’s not enough, I’m sure if this system was made then someone would just mitm the camera sensor and inject fake data, so you’d need to parts pair all camera sensors to the TPM, iPhone home button style (iiuc this exact kind of data injection attack is the justification for the iPhone home button fingerprint scanner parts pairing).

Oh, and how do you stop someone from using such a camera to take a picture of a screen that has an AI image on it?

After I check the usual torrent sites, if I can’t find it on Usenet then I try finding random sketchy streaming sites (just by duckduckgoing title + year + stream) because usually you can youtube-dl them with a little fiddling, then my last resort is a DHT indexer like btdig. That’s more risk with viruses but if you’re paying attention it’s not that hard to avoid, but DHT indexes have lots of ancient stuff so be prepared to wait for seeds if you find it.

Sometimes I also find what I’m looking for on like page 7 of duckduckgo results at archive.org

Edit: also check soulseek - it’s primarily for music but you can share any file. I share my entire movies collection and get a constant stream of people downloading from me daily so it seems people search for and seem to also share TV and movies so it’s worth a check.

I think they mean that it’ll take time for everyone to get it. My carrier still doesn’t even have RCS at all.