Last time I checked, my vehicle is not a legal entity that can be cited for infractions. Whatever person is sitting behind the wheel of that vehicle is not known by a camera. I can't believe these things haven't been totally obliterated in court. In my state, the tickets you get from these things are actually from 3rd parties contractors who run them, and try to sound very official, but they are not actual summons through a court.

It absolves them of liability. If there is a law they have to validate age (even if it is ineffective and easily worked around by minors), and they are doing whatever silly thing they need to do to be compliant, then they have shielded themselves from liability.

By being involved in the process they can steer things to something easy and affordable to implement on their end. Make it work the way they want to (scan an ID, have AI look at their face, DNA test, measure their height - whatever method they're specifically wanting to do is why they are funding this and pushing for it).

From what I see, Iran is completely offline at this point, right?

And maybe that's exactly what the creators of that malware want you to think.

Serious question, why haven't they architected something better than GPUs for running inference? Surely something specifically designed for the task that could do it faster using less power? Something like Groq ASIC (that's just one I've heard of). Why aren't these the future and eclipsing the stop-gap that is GPUs because they already existed and were the best fit at the time?

AI made the code fully type-safe, implemented buffer overflow checks, verifying all parameters in and out, and the perfectly-running result can't fit into the memory of an Apple II or onto a floppy disc...
(I just made that up, but I'm sure the code is much larger after adding all the security and boundary checks)

I was actually in college in the 1990s, but yes, a middle schooler today with python on a raspberry pi and a pretty simple GPS module could do this.

I didn't say it wasn't abhorrent or alarming. I'm presenting the scenario that this task of "defend this three dimensional coordinate box" doesn't require AI.

Yes, it did. The beacon signals weren't that good back then, neither were the sensors. I had the same problem in the fake robot battles I was involved in.

The answer turned out to be a solution not from Defense industries, but from Genie Garage Door Openers.

The robot doesn't care. The robot's job isn't foreign policy. The robot's job is "here's a box defined by this coordinate cloud, defend it"

Like I said, I programmed it for a fighting robot back in the 1990s. It ain't that complex, and with today's drone factory ships, the Navy can now output this level of AI in killbots at a rate of 10,000 a day.

Everyone agrees, they want the biannual time change to go away.

On the other hand, there is almost an even split on which way to go about it. About 50% want it to always be DST, the rest want the opposite. So you're going to permanently tick off half the population depending on which way you go with it.

I should have mentioned, the N64 DOES have perspective correction at the hardware level, so you can say the N64 was a 3D-first architecture.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement, and probably part of their marketing ploy. From a hardware perspective, the PS1 did have a coprocessor that could do matrix calculations, which were useful for the 3D projections and transformations (scaling and rotating) 3D coordinates. IE converting vertices in an object to rotate / scale it in world space, then project it to camera space, etc.

That is helpful, but really, processing the vertices is not the majority of the work required in 3D rendering. It's the rasterization of textures. That is mapping a texture to a polygon with arbitrary texture coordinates. The PS1 had no hardware for that whatsoever, and it was done by their software library.

However, because the CPU has to do it, and there wasn't even hardware-level floating point math (relegating them to fixed point math), they had to cut corners. There is no perspective correction on the texture rasterization. That is why the textures warp and do really weird things as you move, especially for polys close to the camera that you are looking down (IE the perspective changes a lot along the length of the poly as it goes further from the camera).

If you want to claim that the PS1 was "3D first" in architecture, then that would be in flat-shaded polygon rendering only, which the GPU could do, which isn't at all what games ended up doing - they're all texture mapped.

Maybe saying the PS1 was 2.5D first is more accurate. :)

I would stop criticizing Slashdot until 2032 for a mere $50k.