While that's the hype, it's not going to be the reality.

Yes, what they are doing has a market.

Yes, it will absolutely allow many of the masses to do what programmers have been able to do for ages. It will change the market, the cheese will move, but it won't destroy the marketplace for programmers.

I think work in graphics design is probably the best parallel. People freaked out in the 1980s when home computers could make banners and flyers. As the software advanced, you got more and more people doing Word Art, and enormous clipart catalogs let office secretaries make good looking office flyers, creative garage sale fliers, church bingo night announcements, and much more. LLMs let people continue to create this type of thing, and print-on-demand services let them send their creations out to make custom stickers and such. But most critically, NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE were hiring graphics designers for those jobs before. It enabled the masses to do some of what graphics designers do, but when it comes to real ad campaigns and professional marketing, companies know investing a few hundred dollars will bring in a few hundred people from the community, investing many thousands or millions are essential for large regional or national campaigns, those jobs continue to get the professionals.

More people making vibe-coded websites that satisfy their specific needs? Great. They weren't hiring a team of programmers for software development before, and they're not hiring a team of programmers after. Executives that claim they'll cut costs by 90% by firing all the professional programmers are in the hype, they either don't understand the work being done or are playing the field. They may do well in their quarterly financial statements, but a couple years down the line the company won't have anything of value remaining. The CEO will be long gone, sold his options, collected his golden parachute, and moved on to the next company to be restructured. Investors will have gutted and sold everything of value from the company by that point as well, they'll take the hype bubble, milk it, then dump what remains in an asset fire sale. The companies that continue making great things and not seeking the bubbles will continue to create good value, leveraging the tools where appropriate but still hiring skilled workers to create products with lasting value.

There will always be changes in who is the winner and who is the winner this quarter. Certainly plenty of profit-seeking investors care only about those quarterly results, not the products and services on offer. There are companies that will grow and companies that will die, nothing new is there. It's good that more people will be able to have more custom program options, just like WordArt and clipart collections allowed people to easily make their own fliers. Those who want a specific vision in marketing can start with "here's my interpretation from an image generator, but I want it done better." Similarly when a small business needs a team of developers to build a program, the customer can also bring in what tried and failed and what they want to see differently, and they come back with a better bid being able to reference what the client generated using AI as a starting reference for building the professionally-built items.

Agreed. The ESP32 family of processors are popular for good reason. Some of the chips support RISC-V.

Unfortunately there is far more to the question than the Ask Reddit post contains, cost, processing speed, memory requirements, software needs, and much more. Even so, the ESP32 family and earlier ESP8266 have been popular in IoT devices from smart lightbulbs, watches, cameras, and even light industrial use to Arduino ecosystem and student devices for over a decade now.

It was the kids getting ready for school in darkness, taking flashlights to the bus stop in the cold, dark winter mornings, along with some high profile deaths of kids in the morning darkness, that got it reversed when the US tried it about about 50 years ago.

People are great at imagining the late summer nights, but quick to forget the darkness of winter.

People are also slow to remember the location matters. East VS west VS center of the time zone matters. Latitude north matters. People on opposite sides of the time zone experience about an hour difference, one may see the sunrise at 8 am, the other side at 7 am. For latitude, southern Florida has about 3 hours of variance across the year, Los Angeles about 4.5 hours, New York City about 6 hours, Maine nearly 8 hours between the summer and winter. Juneau is a 12 hour daylight difference. Both matter tremendously in how someone experiences the daylight differences across the year.

You must be one of the rare outliers, so it's surprising you're posting on /.

Does anyone in your house or workplace have a cell phone, tablet, or laptop computer? All have the devices, including cheap feature phones, include cameras and microphones. Microphones can easily be activated, and even old dumb phones could have a cell phone set to a speakerphone with the other side mute or otherwise listening without making sounds. Smart watches typically have at least a microphone. Any of these can be activated without your knowledge. What about tech gadgets like automated vacuums, vehicles that include dash cams and legally required backup cameras, smart TVs, all have them. Wireless earbuds are the norm, as phones don't come with wired ports, so listening devices there. Your video game systems can include them, the older XBox Kinect, or if people have headsets for their games, they've got surveillance in their living room even if they don't have one of the digital assistants like an Amazon Echo. Hell, even your microwave oven probably has a microphone in it that gets used with the popcorn button, it isn't online but with smart appliances these days, who knows what exploits exist.

You say cameras are not in the washrooms, but apart from strictly regimented workplaces like government security clearance required, everybody is going to bring their cell phones with them, and some people will even get out the phones while sitting on the toilet, with 2 cameras facing forward and 3 facing back. Doom scrolling or checking message while sitting on the pot is quite common.

It isn't just security cameras mounted on the wall, or clandestine recording devices. We, the unwashed masses, happily surveil ourselves, we buy our own self-surveillance equipment, and have various recording devices all around our most intimate moments.

Bought it on vinyl, sometimes more than once. Bought it on cassette. Some I also bought on 8-track. Bought it again on CD. Bought it again in digital formats because it easier than trying to copy it over. There are tracks I've already bought 4 or 5 times.

Then switch to streaming, were we bought it a fraction of a cent at a time, every time, frequently with ads, for just 13/month, 156/year to rent the music.

Now we'll get to buy it again in whatever is next, but this time direct from the artists.

Sucks, but nothing new. Good for the economy, I guess.

Only 100,000? Those are rookie numbers. You should see what Mr Copypasta and Mr NoFunctions wrote!

Good old "how many lines of code" as a proxy for value.

If that's all they've got to measure success, they're going to be absolutely terrible teams, and quickly terrible code bases.

Negative lines of code are often the best changes.

They get what they measure. Bloated code. Nonsense code. Blocks of code that does processing but adds no value, simply there to inflate the lines of code that came from the AI prompts.

Lines of code are how I get a raise and bons? Let's aim for 10,000 LOC for even the most trivial changes. With some creative prompts we can code up a new minivan before lunchtime.

Yes, always true.

Trademarks are based on both their distinctiveness and secondary meanings acquired through use. The more generic or descriptive the term the less likely they'll be found to be valid. Words with no prior meaning (Kodak, Xerox, etc) have the strongest protections. Not quite as good but still strong are combinations or allusions to other things (WordPerfect, Netflix, Comic-Con) and they tend to get into nasty legal fights ("Sand Diego Comic-Con" owning "Comic-Con", fighting against "Salt Lake Comic Con" and "Phoenix Comiccon" and assorted other conventions around the globe). In the 1980s and 1990s Microsoft fought repeated lawsuits to try to maintain protections on terms like "Windows" and "Word", including losing several which is why they keep branded materials as "Microsoft Windows" and "Microsoft Word", which must both be present for the brand to be considered legally distinctive enough.

They're also limited by industry they're used in, (e.g. Apple Computer, Apple Music, Apple Bank, Apple Dry Cleaning, Apple Stationary), and by geography where multiple businesses can use the same marks if they're not in overlapping geographic regions. All remain perfectly valid trademarks.

Visa continues to fight in courts around the world, as trademarks generally don't allow companies to remove words from the dictionary for their traditional names, although some large companies try very hard to seize the words out of common use.

Naming a product "Flow" is incredibly stupid from a legal perspective. These are creative industries with many talented, creative workers. Probably ANYBODY in the product teams could have come up with more distinctive, creative names. A simple brainstorming meeting could have probably come up with 20 other great product names that would have made for strong trademarks.

I'm sure for most participants, attending the conference is about staying current on the latest technology and proceedings. For the others, some will be attending for business networking, others for job hunting, but most experts go to the conferences to stay current on the latest things they may have missed.

The most likely reasoning here is petty: "I don't want anybody supporting someone who isn't fully loyal to the brand". It sure smells that way from the announcement and news articles. It isn't about "security for all Americans", but about Party Loyalty (tm), to the point of hatred and snubbing of anything that isn't part of the Party.

The most generous telling I can imagine is that the agency is focusing on the "statutory, core mission" part of the quote, and the "stewardship of taxpayer dollars" means "participants will have to pay for their own tickets". I don't think this is likely, but if I try hard, and I mean *really hard* to think of a way to twist the words that aren't about Party Loyalty, that's the only way I can twist and contort it to make it look like anything else.

I'm sure many professionals will still go to the conference, have already registered, and purchased their plane tickets and hotel room months ago. The question will be what happens after. Based on the past year, I'd wager Party Loyalists will give the long knife treatment to professionals who are doing their job at actual security, but we'll know in a few weeks.

Less about the chair, more about lighting that cannot physically exist in the space, sunlight streaming through the north-facing windows, with a view that doesn't exist of an open field which is actually a cinderblock wall and electrical transformers, with carpets that look brand new instead of 25 years of heavy wear.

That immediately identifies you as not being qualified to make the distinctions. What you described can't be codified.

You want to not "make rooms look bigger". How exactly? Does that mean you would consider a 35mm too much? 30mm? 20mm? 10mm? What about 25mm with a crop? How about a 360 panoramic view of room that's typically shot at 24mm? What about one shot at 35mm? A difficulty in photography is that exactly the same settings in one room make it look and feel natural, in another room make it look unnatural or distorted. People say in one breath they don't want fisheye lenses because it creates distortions, but then they see a 360 view in a different room taken with a circular fisheye and they say it is accurately shown. There is no legal test that makes sense there, it's about one person's perception of the space and perception of the image. The closest might be the legal language around a pattern of deceptive practices, but that's easily countered by a particular view being standard across the industry, or limitations of the space requiring a specific set of lenses or lighting.

You also wrote that you're okay with digitally removing objects claiming it is equivalent to staging. From the time I worked doing that sort of thing, I think that's an item most who do actual real estate photography would strongly disagree. Digitally moved objects are what the AI thinks will be in the space. In physically staged objects you might have chairs obscuring carpet stains, tables or couches obscuring traffic lanes in carpet, and photos added to the wall that cover up light-faded paint. Yes people can hide unsightly elements with staging, but the effect is substantially worse with AI generated images: with staged objects it shows the space as it actually is with the issues obscured or occluded. With the AI edited image those actual elements get hallucinated by AI, the algorithm doesn't know there was a stain here, or a faded area there, and it is actually not what is shown in the image.

What is actually codified into law I think addresses the biggest actual problems seen in listings these days, rather than the more abstract "these photos don't present the right feeling for the room". When it comes to the feel of a room, exactly the same camera settings in a different room may feel deceptive or non-deceptive, it isn't the camera settings at fault.

They're trying to, the difficulty is in defining what makes a photo "altered". It's actually surprisingly hard to do, and something journalism struggles with despite over 150 years of clarifications.

In journalism, some elements are explicitly allowed: exposure levels, color balance, a choice for B/W versus color. Some are explicitly prohibited by most outlets, like adding or removing items. Reenacting an event instead of being photos of the actual event are generally prohibited. Even something seemingly innocent like digitally removing a backpack from the side of a scene is enough to get photojournalists banned from some publications and cause an uproar from their audience.

Even with that, there is gray areas. Rotating and cropping are only allowed if they don't change the context, some cropping can make a tremendous difference in the tone of a story, revealing or hiding details that help in understanding. Adjusting the light levels can be controversial, dodge and burn, selectively lightening or darkening areas of a photo, can help improve visual quality of the image and can also highlight certain elements or obscure certain elements, and it can be divisive about if it is allowed or not.

As the story touches on, the use of wide angle lenses, also called 'fish eye' lenses, is common in real estate photography but isn't banned. It can potentially be deceptive, making a room feel larger than it really is, other times it is essential in the photos to actually capture photos of the location.

The new California law is clear about what it covers: "to add, remove, or change elements in the image, including, but not limited to, fixtures, furniture, appliances, flooring, walls, paint color, hardscape, landscape, facade, floor plans, and elements outside of, or visible from, the property, including, but not limited to, streetlights, utility poles, views through windows, and neighboring properties." and "does not include an image where only lighting, sharpening, white balance, color correction, angle, straightening, cropping, exposure, or other common photo editing adjustments are made that do not change the representation of the real property." So some modifications are allowed, and I think they did a good job of clearly conveying the intention when it eventually lands in the court.

It is not about a remote kill switch, it is drunk driving detection.

The headline just calls it a kill switch, the article calls it "impaired-driving prevention systems", which is close to what the law calls it.

The requirement is for creating a policy that has passive alcohol estimation (breath, skin, whatever) and driving patterns typical of drunk driving.

Yup, the story isn't new.

Famously about 25 years ago, on the movie Toy Story 2 someone accidentally wiped the project servers. No working backups. It was only absolute luck that someone with a baby did an unauthorized data dump to work from home. I'm sure it was a bit of a sheepish admission but it saved the film. ("I know the servers were wiped out, but, well, I know it was against policy to have an unauthorized, off-site copy, but I did make a copy of all of it, and I have it here...")

Or go back about 50 years to learn of the lost episodes of Doctor Who, from 1967-1978. Most episodes have been recovered from stations that had old tapes but 97 are still gone, only some audio recordings from fans are known.

Anyone who has been in tech long enough has heard horror stories. A place that made backups but they're all on site and a disaster destroyed them all. Backups that were transferred off site by being driven across town, unwittingly the tech put them on a heated seat that degaussed the backups so the backups weren't viable. Or companies diligently backing up programs and temporary files for years, but accidentally omitting the actual critical business data. On and on.

3-2-1 rule: At least 3 copies, at least 2 different media, at least 1 off-site. Automate and monitor, failures happen. Validate the data occasionally, to make sure you can actually recover from failure. The warnings and the messaging have been around over a half century for digital technology.

You've got to read it carefully.

It's the "low-quality AI slop" they want to crack down on. They're actively pursuing AI systems that generate video on demand, either unique to each viewer or specific to demographics.

They don't like the "low-quality AI slop", they want the high-quality AI slop, the AI-generated videos generated specifically for that individual that matches the algorithm.

And it's clear to everyone they want to be the ones generating the "high-quality AI videos" to cut the content creators out entirely. It will soon be in a form that YT can capture all the ad revenue for themselves instead of pesky content creators that require payments.