"Woman Wrongfully Accused by a License Plate-Reading Camera" .... no, she wasn't.

LPR cameras don't accuse people, nor do they order their arrests. An LPR camera takes a picture of a license plate, reads it using standard image processing algorithms, and provides the plate number and plate image to law enforcement for verification.

What happens next depends on the police. This wasn't a failure of technology, but instead a failure of investigative procedure by the Columbine Valley Police Department.

It was also a failure of Ring cameras, which are absolutely abysmal for security purposes. As the article pointed out, the porch pirate was never recorded getting into the Rivian. That's because Ring cameras don't provide continuous-time internal recordings, since it would interfere with Ring's subscription model. Even a $50 Wyze Cam + memory card would have shown who got into and out of the vehicle.

The accused woman's Rivian was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and captured in the background during the recording of a crime. The CVPD added 2 plus 2 based on incomplete evidence, and got 5.

The correlation between gum / tooth disease and heart disease has been known for many years, but this study provides a mechanism for causation.

For that matter, talk to your veterinarian, and you'll be told that dogs with congestive heart failure and heart murmurs almost always have bad teeth.

I once agreed to participate in a medical study after undergoing a routine medical procedure. I was quite surprised at what I was asked, and how I was asked it.

It wasn't just a matter of self-reporting my information, but also that the survey designers presupposed that I would have a reliable memory of things I had done or eaten going back 6 months to several years, and could provide a meaningful average value. Some questions were asked repeatedly in slightly different ways, perhaps to see if my reponses deviated between them, but it did nothing but add to my annoyance.

About 30 minutes into what was supposed to be a 20-minute survey (with barely half the responses completed), I was shown multiple series of photographs where I had to choose the shade of cooked meat that I consumed, as an indicator of how well-done I liked it. The photos were so disgusting that I couldn't imagine touching anything in them. At that point I gave up.

The signal-to-noise ratio in this type of self-reported medical data must be incredibly low. I don't see how anyone could trust conclusions drawn from such studies.

These glasses and phone cameras are being *actively* used by a person staring at you in a place like a restaurant, which is just creepy, and there's a high likelihood that recording is going to be on Youtube or Tiktok, if they're not already streaming your dinner live.

You see the difference now?

I certainly see what you think the difference is, or perhaps what you think it should be. But give this technology five years, and you won't know you're being recorded, any more than you can know right now if the audio of a conversation you're having with a random stranger is being recorded.

Augmented Reality is coming, and soon you're going to see lots of people wearing AR-capable visual aids everywhere. You won't have a clue if the people using them are recording or not. So short of physically assaulting everyone you see in public venues, your choices are to avoid those venues, or learn to live with it.

Privacy is dead, courtesy of advanced technology that continues to spread at a breakneck pace. Pretending otherwise ignores the reality of how we all must adapt.

Video is easy to deal with. Just get some ultrabright infrared LEDs and wear them all over your body. The glassholes won't get anything but the glare from those.

Except that modern optical sensors with IR filters aren't affected in the least by this tactic.

The current trend in security cameras is "night time color". The cameras no longer go into IR-sensitive night time mode with IR illumination. They are sufficiently sensitive to operate even in very dim white light. All infrared sources are automatically filtered out. And when a particular technology becomes cheap enough to place in a sub-$100 security camera, it is just a matter of time before it speads everywhere.

The last thirty years of technological advancement have proven that if a technology is cheap, easy to use, provides some perceived advantage to the user, and can by rationalized by the user as causing no real harm to others, then it will be used .... everywhere.

Railing against smart glasses that record video makes as much sense, and is just about as effective, as railing against security cameras recording you, or your cell phone company always knowing your location, or Google and Amazon tracking everything you buy and every place you visit.

It is already trivial for someone to surrepticiously record the audio of any conversation on a smart phone or smart watch, then run it through a speech-to-text converter to produce a transcript. Smart glasses are just the next logical step.

This is the world we live in now. You must assume, always, that any interaction with another human being who you do not implictly trust is being recorded. We can't unmake the computers or the software, and when the same people who rail about their privacy then make a point of posting their concerns on social media to draw as much attention to themselves as possible, then they implicity undermine their own arguments.

I was never sure that they had the "best engineers", but they did have the best processes to make IC's.

They had (and still have) excellent engineers, but a terrible corporate reward structure. In my experience with them, engineers who worked on expensive high-margin products were rewarded and promoted. Everyone else was shoved aside.

Ever wonder why Intel made zero inroads into low-cost computing? They had the processes and the talent to do it, and even made an attempt with the (now cancelled) Galileo, Joule, and Edison product lines. But every time I contacted their Galileo group, a completely different group of engineers were running it. It was a dead-end career move at Intel, and every competent engineer tried to get out as quickly as possible.

Until and unless the internal corporate reward structure changes at Intel, the death spiral will continue.

Like most of the ills of academia, this one is largely self-inflicted.

For decades, promotion & tenure committees have held junior faculty to standards that they themselves could never have achieved. You'd have P&T committee members passing judgment on assistant professors who had published more journal papers than any three of them put together. It didn't matter - the bar was constantly raised.

So faculty increasingly turned to the MPU (minimum publishable unit) strategy - chopping up what should have been one really good paper into five or six mediocre ones. Even before AI exacerbated this problem, the crapflood of journal submissions was overwhelming reviewers and journal editors.

And now? It's become even more nightmarish. Many of my colleagues simply refuse to review papers any longer. They're done wasting their time going through ultra-dense text with perfect grammar and spelling that was clearly written by ChatGPT. There have even been Ph.D. students who attempted to pass their qualifying exams with immaculate presentations on material that they could not answer even the simplest questions about. So now we're moving into the second phase of the rot, where students who earned fraudulent Ph.D.'s become the next generation of faculty.

Academia will not be a pretty sight twenty years from now.

Tan said Intel will instead focus on "edge" AI that operates directly on devices rather than centralized computers.

And will those "edge" AI devices have to sell for $1000 each in order for the engineers who design them to be rewarded and promoted within the company?

That has been Intel's doom for the past three decades. The employees working on high-end products with high margin sales get all the attention and promotions. The ones working on high-volume, low margin products go nowhere. That's why Intel has made so little headway in anything beyond enterprise products in recent years.

This new "focus" will go nowhere unless Intel's corporate culture is vastly different than what is was when I last dealt with it.

I rountinely use LLMs for cleaning up prose in various reports. As a proofreader and editor, it's the best tool I've ever found.

For creating reports from scratch, you have to be careful. It's not perfect, but it will get you 85% to 95% of the way there on a first cut once you feed it the data. It's no replacement for a human, but it does save a lot of time.

I also use it for email. When I have an important email to send out that must be "perfect", I'll run my draft through ChatGPT and ask it for a review, and to show me what it changed, and why. More than once, it has caught a missing word or a clumsy phrase.

So yes, LLMs are not a gimmick, and they do increase productivity if used correctly.

This year, enrollment grew by only 0.2 percent nationally, and at many programs, it appears to already be in decline, according to interviews with professors and department chairs.

At my university, we've seen an 8% decline in CS enrollment since Fall 2022. It will probably be even worse when the Fall 2025 numbers are tallied. On the plus side, students are rapidly moving back into other engineering majors again, with several seeing 20% to 60% growth over that time.

Unfortunately, our adminstration decided back in 2021 to put all their eggs into the CS basket (i.e. faculty hires, budget allocations), just before the CS bubble began to burst. Other engineering programs are now desperate for money as their enrollments soar, but I expect that it make take a few more years before the message percolates up to the Chancellor.

Heaven help all colleges where non-STEM administrators decide to implement their visions about the future of STEM.

Yup. They are every bit as culpable for climate change as the fossil fuel companies. Now they complain it will take too long. Well it has taken a long time for us to get to where we have 400 reactors and 12,000 thermal coal plants in the world, so it is indeed going to take a long time to fix. Best start now rather than whining about how long it will take, that's the reason we are where we are in the first place.

Or to paraphrase a well-known saying: "The best time to build a nuclear power plant was twenty years ago. The second-best time is today."

The rise in the use of signal jammers is due in no small part to the popularity of WiFi-connected security cameras. For example, signal jammers are very popular tools among professional burglary rings. They've hit multiple homes in the pricier areas of the county I live in.

Companies like Ring have been very successful in convincing consumers that "Ring = home security", when in fact Ring cameras are a terrible choice due to the fact that they must have a WiFi connection in order to operate. The burglars scout out pricey homes in neighborhoods where no one ever talks to their neighbors, and houses are isolated by distance, foliage, and fences. And it just so happens that the owners installed Ring cameras.

So the burglars drive up, activate their jammers to knock out both the Ring cameras and the cell connection for any burglar alarm, then clean the place out. Even if an alarm goes off, chances are that no one will hear it, or call the police if they do.

If you're truly serious about video security, you need hardwired cameras with onsite storage and battery backup. You might still get robbed, but at least you'll have something to show the police.

The interesting part is the human psychology behind it, i.e. what causes (allegedly) intelligent people to perform a necessary test, and then simply ignore the results of that test when the results aren't what they had hoped for?

That type of behavior (ignoring inconvenient facts that fail to fit your desires or opinions) is so common that it's practically the norm for humanity. Someone who can look at the facts and accept a conclusion that will cost them money or social standing is a very rare bird indeed.

Rush only killed four people besides himself. Politicians with similar mindsets have been responsible for the deaths of millions. In that sense the world is lucky that Rush's influence only extended to OceanGate.

You could replace "mosquitoes" in that headline with polio, smallpox, measles, AIDS, malaria, or any one of a thousand different pathogens. No one is agonizing over eradicating them.

If a particular species of mosquito is a vector for a deadly disease, eliminating that one species provides a net benefit. You don't have to kill all mosquitoes, just the species that are truly dangerous. So yes, do it.