I think if an MRI was ever used for airport security screening it would cause more damage and disruption than the terrorist bombs it purports to detect.
Both. 1.5/3 T is standard, >3 T machines (such as 5 T from United Imaging) are becoming more popular (and affordable) and at the same time ultra low field ones keep improving and now they make some things that were impossible before now actually doable such as bed-side MRI (not in clinical practice of course, but there was nice engineering proof of concept with ultra low field MRI machine that could be powered by normal power outlet).
The idea behind the recent boom in low-field stuff is that you'd like to have small/cheap machines that can be everywhere and produce good-enough images through smarts (algorithms, design) rather than brute force.
The attitude on the research side is essentially "por qué no los dos?" Crank up the field strength AND use better algorithms, in the hopes of expanding what you can study.
I know nothing about the "industry" of MRIs, but from the physics side, (everything equal) more Tesla is better - at the end of the day, harder magnetic field gets you a stronger signal
There's no "retroactive" exception. The core point of this rule is to deter police from intentionally violating people's rights, under the expectation that what they find will, "retroactively", vindicate them. Won't work.
How would you know when it did? You can’t “retroactively” justify an arbitrary search under the exclusionary rule, but this doesn’t exclude evidence tangential to a legally-executed warrant during the execution of that warrant. For example, suppose someone is suspected of illegally possessing wildlife. A search warrant is issued on the residence. No wildlife is found, and in fact no wildlife was ever on the premises. If officers find large quantities of cocaine during the search, they aren’t precluded from making an arrest, because the warrant used to gain entry and conduct the search was legal.
> In Arizona v. Hicks, police officers were in an apartment investigating a shooting and suspected that a record player in the apartment was stolen. The officers could not see the serial number, which was on the bottom of the record player, so they lifted the player and confirmed that its serial number matched that of one that had been reported stolen. However, the Supreme Court ruled that lifting the record player constituted an additional search (although a relatively nonintrusive one) because the serial number was not in plain view.
Constitutional law doesn't mean anything when the authorities don't respect it. Constitutional law won't stop you from being arrested or killed if you don't fully submit to an authoritarian government.
There were laws in Germany to prevent what Hitler did. It still happened.
Depends what you mean by "the authorities." It's a demonstrable fact there are many small local PDs that don't give a shit about the first, fourth, or fifth amendments to name a few. That doesn't mean the Constitution "doesn't mean anything" in those places.
> What recourse would an American have against a punitive search?
None. The endless videos, from better-years-gone-by of people refusing to answer questions at the border then having drug dogs run all over their car to scratch it up was my first exposure to federal agents acting maliciously.
You can attempt to sue for damages, but the suit is likely to be dismissed because law enforcement and legal adjudication are tightly coupled and very friendly in ways that subvert the proper functioning of justice. More likely you'd just invite more harassment for daring to attempt recourse at all.
You can sue for anything, whether or not you win is another matter. Civil and criminal court also don't have the same rules or standards for evidence and culpability. Whether or not actions were legal is not really what is being adjudicated there.
Well the first half of the sentence you're replying to is "a legal, valid and justified search." So if your question is "what recourse does an American have against a legal, valid and justified search" the answer is obviously and correctly "none."
You might be able to argue harassment or malicious prosecution if it's just one part of an ongoing campaign but even that is going to be hard to argue if everything is within the bounds of the law.
> Musk has pushed back against guardrails for Grok [...] Musk has “been unhappy about over-censoring” on Grok “for a long time.” [...] At one meeting in recent weeks before the latest controversy erupted, Musk held a meeting with xAI staffers from various teams where he “was really unhappy” over restrictions on Grok’s Imagine image and video generator
...how are the shareholders not in revolt over this?
The stock seems completely disconnected from the antics of Musk. I would think that having a CEO who is clearly a heavy ketamine user and spends more time playing politician than actually running the company would have a negative impact on the stock, but tesla's stock has been divorced from reality for a long time.
> I have hope that LLMs might break some people out of their echo chambers
Are LLMs "democratized" yet, though? If not, then it's just-as-likely that LLMs will be steered by their owners to reinforce an echo-chamber of their own.
For example, what if RFK Jr launched an "HHS LLM" - what then?
> I really doubt the user data for a smart tv user is all that valuable.
According to a 2021 article about Vizio's user-hostile advert display devices, they boast of an average revenue of $13/yr - up from $7.30/yr, though consider this was 2020 when more people were at-home watching TV instead of going outside, meeting people, touching grass, the usual.
> A range of advertising opportunities drive revenue, including revenue sharing with programmers and distribution partners as well as activations on the device home screen. In the fourth quarter of 2020, the company said average revenue per user on SmartCast was $12.99, up from $7.31 in the same period of 2019.
-------------
If you'll allow me to make an arbitrary assumption that a new TV set bought today will last about 10 years, then $13/yr means the advertising revenue implies Vizio has reduced the sale-price of their TVs by $130 compared to before we had no-opt-out advertising displayed on our own property as a condition for the privilege of using said device.
Yes, the newer generation is used to computers being an inconsistent mess and slow. Only the the technically interested people know that it doesn't need to be this way. (And thus don't feed up with this and use Linux or *BSD :-) ).
yearning for old apple and order, current times and genz are more chaotic. not sure if it's generational, old apple was obsessed about design, now HIG is mostly optional. they now even use hamburger on websites which was a big no in the past.
reply