Korkstand

quote:

---

I’m confused.

---

That's clear

quote:

---

You’re ok with the government tracking you when you’re walking around your neighborhood, but not when you’re driving?

---

Not ok with it at all without cause. We can use cameras for protection without taking the giant leap to tracking everyone at all times, and without making that data searchable without a warrant.

quote:

---

What case are you referring to? Carpenter? Because that pertains to cell phones.


Not you driving on a public road.

---

There are several cases but yes that is the main one. It pertains to cell phones because that was essentially the only way to track everyone all the time. Now we have a new way to do that. Are you being obtuse intentionally?

quote:

---

Yall won’t butch when a family member is a victim of a violent crime and a LPR camera catches the Perp. A LPR helped find a neighbor with dementia who drove and got lost. Found her 40 miles away 20 minutes after being reported missing.

---

As with weapons or really any tool, there are legit good uses and bad ones. I don't think people have a problem with the technology so much as they have a problem with how it's being used and how it looks like they're prepping to go further in that bad direction.

quote:

---

Did you read your agreement with Apple?

---

Did you read your agreement with the government?

quote:

---

Issue is almost WiFi

---

It's always DNS but when it's not it's your wifi.

quote:

---

Have no fear unless you are breaking the law!

---

Mass surveillance is how they start finding "criminals" who haven't done anything wrong. It has already started due to these cameras and it will get much worse.

My response to your exact question is I would feed the file to AI and have it write formulas for what you want, then verify.

But to really solve your problem, which as I understand it is

quote:

---

save a ton of time

---

I would put this data in a database and write queries. AI can plop out a pretty frontend for it too if you want.

quote:

---

I had to google to see if that was actually real.

---

I asked AI if it was AI.

Turns out the thing is real, and the marketing videos are even *mostly* real but obviously very edited and perfectly staged.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's free

---

Minus the hardware.

---

And the power.

My math says a modest machine and modest usage would cost ~$100/year to run at 15 cents/kwh.

quote:

---

What port forwarding?

Most home routers have VPN servers already on them. You press an enable button and give it a password. Done for setup. You install the VPN app on a phone and connect.

---

Most people don't even know that they can log in to their router and configure it. Setting up a VPN and dealing with those potential issues in addition to the BI app is several steps too far. Again, the process with an NVR is install app, point camera at QR code, done.

quote:

---

As far the computer, as long as it is turned on Blue Iris will run. You don't have to remain logged in.

---

How many steps are required to make Windows keep running? With an NVR appliance as long as the power is on it's running. Any steps beyond that are too many.

And the update process. NVR updates are one click in the app to update the NVR software and the underlying OS/firmware. And if your camera brands match the NVR it will update their firmware too. How's that process with BI?

quote:

---

What commercial NVR will work with generic Chinese cameras?

---

Every single NVR on the market will work with Dahua cameras.


I'm not trying to knock Blue Iris (though I do question the choice to keep it Windows-only). I'm just saying when someone asks for plug and play it's way down my list.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I’m not sure that kind of liability filtering can be replaced by machines but also our obsession with liability is why western society is getting rapidly leapfrogged

---

The most underreported issue in tech today, imo.

No one wants to just do things, everyone wants to cover their arse, because that's what we've incentivized: saying why you can't or shouldn't do something.

---

Interesting points from both of you. I'll just say that CYA, liability, risk management, and responsibility are part of what allows any society to function at all, but I'll leave it to others to debate whether Western society has become so focused on them that they're now holding us back.

What I'll focus on is how these same themes keep appearing in my software development work. The more I build with AI, the more I feel like they're all converging into a different way of thinking about software.

Almost everything we do involves uncertainty. We make assumptions, gather evidence, weigh tradeoffs, and make decisions based on logic, experience, incentives, and sometimes just intuition. Even who has the authority to make a decision can itself be uncertain. Regardless of how much we automate, there eventually comes a point where a real human owns the outcome.

Naturally, we like taking credit for positive outcomes and dislike taking blame for negative ones. The goal, of course, is to avoid negative outcomes altogether.

Lately I've become fixated on how software represents uncertainty. Take something as simple as a task manager with a binary "done" checkbox. Reality isn't binary. Sometimes a task is mostly done. Sometimes the original task becomes irrelevant because a different solution unexpectedly solves the same problem. Sometimes someone takes an action that nobody anticipated, yet it advances the desired outcome better than the original plan.

Those details matter, but most software throws them away. We compress a messy reality into a checkbox, a status field, or a dropdown, and with it we lose information that could have helped us understand what actually happened, why it happened, what evidence supported the decision, what alternatives existed at the time, and ultimately how to make better decisions in the future.

That's just one simple example. I keep finding the same pattern everywhere. We force reality into rigid schemas because computers have traditionally been deterministic. Our software reflects that mindset.

Reality, however, is uncertain from top to bottom.

One thing AI has given me is the freedom to rapidly experiment with UI and UX. The more I do, the less I think the interface should primarily be about manipulating software. Instead, I keep coming back to the idea that the machine should preserve uncertainty rather than erase it, then present that uncertainty in a way that's actually useful to the human making the next decision.

Given what I'm trying to accomplish right now, show me everything I need to know—and only what I need to know—to confidently make the next decision that I will ultimately own.

That has me wondering if AI changes the purpose of the interface itself. As AI takes over more execution, the UI becomes less about operating software and more about enabling collaboration between humans and AI. It's the protocol through which judgment, evidence, uncertainty, and responsibility flow between us.

If that's true, then humans become the bottleneck—not because we're slow, but because we remain responsible. The challenge isn't simply building better AI. It's building the highest-bandwidth interface possible for human judgment.

I'll summarize my current position and understanding like this:

As automation increases, the work that's left for humans is disproportionately about uncertainty/ambiguity, judgment, and ownership (of decisions not things). The interface should optimize for those tasks, and as of now I don't know how that should look or work, or how to even think and talk about it.

I guess I should do some reading on HCI theory.