Your nose or…?

The queen B be pimpin’ the worker beeatches

Of course, make an anti-feature part of an integral part, which coincidentally also happens to handle personal files…

Great article! “education” … “risk assessments” … “early intervention” … Got to break their spirit while they’re young

It’s almost as if they’re seeking to replace these with technology. They’ve purposefully neglected social services and will continue to do so, to lower the bar for AI and grant themselves an excuse for the poor “substitute”. And this isn’t at all restricted to the UK, in The Netherlands we’re in the midst of it too: the same exact playbook. Modern surveillance cameras (like Axis’ for example) have NPU’s built in, or camera footage (even from legacy analog cameras, by use of encoders) is linked to either an onsite server, a cloud-service, or a combination of the two, facilitating the functionality. I hardly believe AI to be the limiting factor here, storage of footage is another story however. But I think they instead strategically place facial-recognition cameras, while the other cameras simply store abstractions from the footage. Of course if one of those cameras senses an event, which it recognizes might be of elevated relevance, it might store the raw footage. An example being: railways doing face-scanning for “depression detection”, instead of implementing ‘platform screen doors’ of course…

I’m not that up-to-date on my bat-lore, but I’ve always thought they were primarily active at night, and navigate themselves using sonar there. But perhaps eyesight is also complementary to sonar at night, or vise versa? Again, my bat-lore’s lacking

Photos, as in sonar depth maps?

More eyes in the sky. It seems like even pigeons aren’t save from being replaced by technology…

Honestly, the tech seems quite impressive. But I wouldn’t touch Amazon-backed smart glasses, which “could also provide health insights, such as detecting dry eyes or monitoring posture”, with a ten-foot pole; especially when there’s also entirely passive bifocals and progressives.

India proposes requiring smartphone makers to share source code with the government and make several software changes as part of a raft of security measures.

How does that sound promising at all? Especially when initiated by a government, previously having attempted to enforce government spyware, to be installed on all consumer smartphones. The following excerpts are from India’s proposed phone security rules that are worrying tech firms

Devices must store security audit logs, including app installations and login attempts, for 12 months.

Phones must periodically scan for malware and identify potentially harmful applications.

Defined to be potentially harmful by who? Right.

Phone makers must notify a government organisation before releasing any major updates or security patches.

We cannot approve of the security patch just yet, as we must first extensively exploit the vulnerability…

Devices must detect if phones have been rooted or “jailbroken”, where users bypass built-in security restrictions, and display continuous warning banners to recommend corrective measures.

Phones must permanently block installation of older software versions, even if officially signed by the manufacturer, to prevent security downgrades.