High-powered computers are a niche issue, which means on a society level there's little benefit to restricting them.
Lightbulbs on the other hand affect all of society, so they've got a much larger impact to the overall CO2 budget.
Additionally, the average person uses a laptop or mobile devices, all of which use less power than even a single typical incandescent bulb (and people usually have many lightbulbs).
Replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs saves a lot of CO2 at basically zero cost, while getting rid of computers saves less CO2 for a much larger economic impact.
And even the effect described by this article has to be looked at in context, considering most of the light people experience in a day — and have experienced for the since homo sapiens existed — is natural sunlight, even in northern Europe during the winter (that's why EU law mandates windows with sunlight in every office, apartment, bedroom, etc.)
There's a massive difference between the 2600K of regular incandescent bulbs, and the 6000K of sunlight. That's why hollywood used HMIs until they migrated to LED.
For professional applications there are sulfur plasma lamps which have a continuous spectrum at high efficiency. Unfortunately they aren't economical below about 1000 watts which is impractical for many applications.
The technology basically works by continuously microwaving (think oven) a small amount of sulfur gas. The development of solid-state microwave emitters — most microwave generation is still done with vacuum tubes — might help miniaturize the devices. However, it's hard to beat the simplicity of an LED.
There is, but most humans are used to the spectral pattern of black body radiators at all color temperatures. Be that sunlight at higher temperatues or fires / candlelight at lower temperatures.
Regular exposure to fire/candlelight has only existed for a hundredthousand years, while mitochondria have existed almost unchanged for millions of years.
So even that assumption would require further study.
It’s also to check if something works. I recently added something new and while I cannot and will not track any personally identifying information, I still need some data if people go through the whole process alright. That covers legitimate interest. It’s the minimum data I collect and its get wiped after some time.
An IP address is not "personally identifiable data". You can not know who the person is just because you got an IP address in the request.
We are almost 10 years into the GDPR, and we still have these gross misunderstandings about how to interpret it. Meanwhile, it has done nothing to stop companies from tracking people and for AI scrapers to run around. If this is not a perfect example of Regulatory Capture in action, I don't know what is.
> An IP address is not "personally identifiable data".
GDPR says it is [1][2].
> We are almost 10 years into the GDPR, and we still have these gross misunderstandings
Because people would rather smugly and confidently post about their gross misunderstandings. If only there was some place to read about this and learn. I’ll give you the money shot to save 10 more years:
> Fortunately, the GDPR provides several examples in Recital 30 that include:
> Internet protocol (IP) addresses;
From Recital 30:
> Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses
When an IP address is linked to any other data, then it counts as PII. By itself, it's not.
So, sure, if you stick the user's IP address on a cookie from a third-party service, you are sharing PII. But this is absolutely not the same as saying "you need to claim legimate interest to serve anything, because you will need their IP address".
IPs are PII even before you inevitably link them to something in your logs. If you can make a case that you absolutely don’t store them anywhere, they’re just transiently handled by your network card, maybe you get away with it but only because someone else along the stream covers this for you (your hosting provider, your ISP, etc.)
Source: I have been cursed to work on too many Data Protection Impact Assessments, and Records of Processing Activities together with actual lawyers.
Basically we are in agreement: IP addresses, by themselves, are not PII, only when they are linked to other information (a cookie, a request log) then it consitutes processing.
So, apologies if I was not precise on my comment, but I still stand by the idea: you don't need to a consent screen that says "we collect your IP address", if that's all you do.
Not really, no. I don’t think I can make it more clear than I, or the law, already did: IPs are PII no matter what. Period. It’s literally spelled out in the law.
The misconception is that you need explicit consent for any kind of processing of PII. That is not the case. The law gives you alternatives to consent, if you can justify them. Some will confuse this with “must mean IPs aren’t PII”, which is not the case.
An IP address linked with the website being accessed is already PII.
When serving content, you're by necessity linking it to a website that's being accessed.
For example, if grindr.com had a display in their offices that showed the IP address of the request that's currently being handled, that's not saving or publishing or linking the data, but it's still obvious PII.
IP address is considered personal data and can be considered personally identifiable data in some circumstances for example if you can geolocate someone to a small area using it
- they don't care about the cookies they are setting on their properties, if most of the functionality they have require you to be authenticated anyway.
- These "smaller websites" are exactly the ones more likely than not to be Google's and Facebook's largest source of data, because these sites are the ones using Google Analytics/Meta Pixel/etc.
This is not my experience at all with Facebook. Since six months ago or so, Facebook is saying my three option are to pay them a subscription, accept tracking, or not use their products. I went with option three, but my reading of the GDPR as that it's illegal for them to ask me to make this choice.
I'm in Spain, this is probably not the same worldwide.
The "Reject all" does not in fact reject all. They are taking extreme liberties with the "legitimate interest" clause to effectively do all tracking and analytics under it.
The YouTube consent screen for example includes this as a mandatory item:
> Measure audience engagement and site statistics to understand how our services are used and enhance the quality of those services
I don't believe this complies with the GDPR to have this mandatory.
Germany does actually have station fees. And DB isn't the only operator. The RRX trains, one of which OP talked about, are operated by DB and National Express, ordered by the RRX group comprised of VRR, go.Rheinland, NWL, SPNV-Nord and NVV, running on tracks and stations by DB InfraGO.
> Small neural networks I believe are the current state of the art (e.g. train to reverse a 16x16 color filter pattern for the given camera). What is currently in use by modern digital cameras is all trade secret stuff.
Considering you usually shoot RAW, and debayer and process in post, the camera hasn't done any of that.
It's only smartphones that might be doing internal AI Debayering, but they're already hallucinating most of the image anyway.
Sure - if you don't want to do demosaicing on the camera, that's fine. It doesn't mean there is not an algorithm there as an option.
If you care about trying to get an image that is as accurate as possible to the scene, then it is well within your interest to use a Convolutional Neural Network based algorithm, since these are amongst the highest performing in terms of measured PSNR (which is what nearly all demosaicing algorithms in academia are measured on). You are maybe thinking of generative AI?
At least in broadcast/cinema, no one uses CNN for debayering, because why would you?
In cinema, you just use a 6K sensor and use conventional debayering for a perfect 4K image. Even the $2000 Sony FX-30 ships with that feature nowadays. Combined with a good optical low pass filter, that'll also avoid any and all moiré noise.
In broadcast, if you worry about moiré noise or debayering quality, you just buy a Sony Z750 with a three-chip prism design, which avoids the problem entirely by just having three separate full-resolution sensors.
Yes, people usually shoot RAW (anyone spending this much on a camera knows better) - but these cameras default to JPEG and often have dual-capture (RAW+JPEG) modes.
To be clear, they default to JPEG for the image preview on the monitor (LCD screen). Whenever viewing an image on a professional camera, you’re always seeing the resulting JPEG image.
The underlying data is always captured as a RAW file, and only discarded if you’ve configured the camera to only store the JPEG image (discarding the original RAW file after processing).
> Whenever viewing an image on a professional camera
Viewing any preview image on any camera implies a debayered version: who says is it JPEG-encoded - why would it need to be? Every time I browse my SD card full of persisted RAWs, is the camera unnecessarily converting to JPEG just to convert it back to bitmap display data?
> The underlying data is always captured as a RAW file, and only discarded if you’ve configured the camera to only store the JPEG image (discarding the original RAW file after processing).
Retaining only JPEG is the default configuration on all current-generation Sony and Canon mirrorless cameras: you have to go out of your way to persist RAW.
Even my doctor's office and local government agencies support PGP encrypted emails, and refuse to send personal data via unencrypted email, but tech nerds still claim no one can use it?
No? With let's encrypt the certificate is rotated, but the private key remains the same, and importantly, let's encrypt never gets to see it, and anything is logged.
I said “typically” because Let’s Encrypt doesn’t control key rotation: the issuance managing client (like Certbot) does.
But AFAICT, Certbot has rotated private keys automatically on reissuance since at least 2016[1]. There’s no reason not to in a fully automated scheme. I would expect all of the other major issuing clients to do the same.
Lightbulbs on the other hand affect all of society, so they've got a much larger impact to the overall CO2 budget.
Additionally, the average person uses a laptop or mobile devices, all of which use less power than even a single typical incandescent bulb (and people usually have many lightbulbs).
Replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs saves a lot of CO2 at basically zero cost, while getting rid of computers saves less CO2 for a much larger economic impact.
And even the effect described by this article has to be looked at in context, considering most of the light people experience in a day — and have experienced for the since homo sapiens existed — is natural sunlight, even in northern Europe during the winter (that's why EU law mandates windows with sunlight in every office, apartment, bedroom, etc.)
reply