Skip to main content

Meta Launches Cheaper Smart Glasses Without Ray-Ban

2 weeks 1 day ago
Meta has launched its first smart glasses without Ray-Ban branding. Starting at $299, they're cheaper than the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2 while retaining EssilorLuxottica as a design and manufacturing partner. The Verge reports: As far as style and specs, the Meta Glasses aren't that different from Ray-Bans. The internal specs are the same as the recently released Ray-Ban Meta Optics Styles, with slightly longer battery life. The Adventurer models have thinner rims, while the Fury models hew a bit closer to the Meta Ray-Ban Display with a bolder, chunkier frame. You could describe the Adventurer as square, and the Fury as even more square. The Kylie glasses sport a more unique design with a distinct Y2K flavor that I'm told is meant to be worn lower on your nose. [...] While playing around with the Meta Glasses, it was hard not to notice that the camera appears smaller than in previous Ray-Ban glasses. Technically, Himel tells me, that's not new to these Meta Glasses. It was actually introduced back in March with the prescription-optimized Optics Styles. [...] Meta is quadrupling down on AI. The new Meta Glasses will all launch with Muse Spark, the first model out of Meta's Superintelligence Labs. (It'll also be arriving on older Ray-Ban and Oakley glasses in the US and Canada via a software update.) Supposedly, that means more helpful glasses. At my hands-on, I was told that Meta AI would now be less stiff. I'd be able to talk to it more naturally and get smarter responses. The AI now supports 14 more languages, including Arabic, Japanese, Mandarin, Hindi, and Korean. Pedestrian turn-by-turn navigation is also coming to Meta's displayless glasses. Later this month, there'll be a new "dynamic photo" feature that automatically takes multiple frames and then recommends the best one.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BeauHD

Fedora Governance Changes Take Effect as Project Refines Leadership, Policy, and Contributor Oversight

2 weeks 1 day ago
by George Whittaker

A series of Fedora governance updates are now taking effect, marking another step in the project's ongoing effort to modernize decision-making processes, improve transparency, and better support Fedora's growing contributor community. The changes come as the Fedora Council and other leadership bodies continue refining how one of the Linux world's largest community-driven projects is managed.

While these updates may not be as visible as a new desktop environment or kernel release, they play a critical role in shaping Fedora's future direction, community initiatives, and long-term sustainability.

How Fedora Governance Works

Fedora's governance structure is built around several key organizations that guide different aspects of the project.

These include:

  • The Fedora Council, which oversees strategic direction
  • FESCo (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee), responsible for technical and engineering decisions
  • Mindshare, which focuses on community outreach and contributor engagement
  • Various Special Interest Groups (SIGs) and working groups that manage specific initiatives and technologies

Together, these groups help coordinate thousands of contributors spread across the globe.

Greater Focus on Strategic Planning

Recent Fedora Council discussions have emphasized long-term planning and governance modernization. One major area of focus has been defining clearer processes for evaluating and managing new initiatives through what Fedora leaders call an Innovation Lifecycle framework.

The proposed framework aims to:

  • Better evaluate experimental projects
  • Establish clearer entry and review phases
  • Define expectations for community initiatives
  • Improve oversight as projects mature

The goal is to create a more predictable path for new ideas while maintaining Fedora's culture of innovation.

Refining Contributor Representation

Another governance topic receiving significant attention involves contributor participation and voting eligibility.

Fedora leadership has been examining questions such as:

  • What defines an active contributor?
  • How should voting rights be determined?
  • How can elections remain fair while staying inclusive?
  • How should dormant accounts be handled?

These discussions stem from concerns that existing systems may not always accurately reflect current contributor activity.

While no single solution has been finalized, governance bodies are actively working toward policies that balance openness with accountability.

Go to Full Article
George Whittaker