New York Post
๋ณด์ ์ฑํฅ
IT/๊ธฐ์
ESPN under scrutiny for AI-generated image of Tony Parker during NBA Finals Game 1
ESPN may have some explaining to do.
๐บ๐ธ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ ยท IT/๊ธฐ์ ยท "EXPLAINING" ยท ์ด 5๊ฑด
ํํฐ ๋ณด๊ธฐํ์ฌ ์ง์
48.8
0 = ๋ถ์ ์ฐ์ธ
50 = ์ค๋ฆฝ
100 = ๊ธ์ ์ฐ์ธ
์ต๊ทผ 7์ผ ๊ธฐ์ค 11,035๊ฑด์ ๋ถ์ํ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ๋ด์ค ์ฌ๋ฆฌ์ง์๋ 48.8(๊ท ํ)์ ๋๋ค. ๊ธ์ 1,110๊ฑด(10.1%)ยท์ค๋ฆฝ 7,891๊ฑด(71.5%)ยท๋ถ์ 2,034๊ฑด(18.4%)์ด๋ฉฐ, ์ค๋ฆฝ ๋น์ค์ด ๋๋ ทํ๊ฒ ๋์ต๋๋ค. ์ฑํฅ ์ง์๋ ์ข ํฉ 22.1(๋ณด์ ๊ฒฝํฅ)์ ๋๋ค.
ESPN may have some explaining to do.
The historian behind Lords of Finance has a warning for Silicon Valley: He's seen these numbers before โ and they didn't end well.
A practical introduction to phase noise concepts, explaining how oscillator instability affects RF systems and how phase noise is measured, analyzed, and reported. What Attendees will Learn What phase noise is and why it matters โ Learn how real-world oscillators differ from ideal ones, why short-term frequency instability arises, and why phase variations typically have a much greater impact than amplitude variations on system performance. How phase noise degrades system performance โ Understand the most common effects of excessive phase noise: spectral regrowth, reciprocal mixing, and constellation rotation in digital communications. How phase noise is measured and reported โ Explore the spectrum analyzer method and the cross-correlation technique, understand single sideband (SSB) phase noise plots and spot noise tables. What advanced phase noise measurements look like in practice โ Discover additional measurement types including integrated phase noise, additive (residual) phase noise, pulsed signal phase noise, and amplitude noise. Download this free whitepaper now!
Patients who use mobile applications to manage medical conditions including depression and chronic pain might assume the apps have been evaluated by regulatory agencies to be safe and effective. But that isnโt necessarily the case. Most of the more than 55,000 medical apps that claim to diagnose or treat a conditionโor ones that provide clinical decision support, known as โtherapeuticโ appsโhave never been assessed by any trusted neutral bodies or regulatory agencies to evaluate them for technical soundness, ethical design, or clinical benefit. The apps often donโt comply with regional data security and privacy laws to protect peopleโs sensitive health information. Medical apps differ from traditional wellness apps, which provide users with insights into becoming healthier by, for example, tracking fitness activities, monitoring blood pressure, and analyzing sleep patterns. There is no reliable way to verify that therapeutic apps deliver the results they indicate. To help ensure such apps are credible, the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA) recently launched the IEEE Global Medical Mobile App Assessment and Registry. The publicly searchable directory is designed to list apps that have been vetted by experts across several criteria including technical soundness, ethical design, compliance with data security and privacy regulations, and clinical efficacy, which is evidence of a clinical benefit for the patient. โPatients, clinicians, payers, and health care systems often struggle to distinguish clinically meaningful therapeutic apps from those that are simply well-marketed,โ says IEEE Senior Member Yuri Quintana, chair of the assessment and registry program. He is chief of the clinical informatics division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, in Boston. โOur goal is to establish a standardized review method using criteria developed by experts.โ Why regulation is lacking Because the apps are intended for medical use without being part of a medical implement, they fall under the designation of software as a medical device (SaMD), according to the International Medical Device Regulators Forum. SaMD is supposed to be regulated by public health agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but the apps have developed and grown in popularity so quickly that regulators havenโt been able to keep up, Quintana says. Some companies have received approval, but most have not, he says. Many users are unaware of the regulatory gap, he says. โSeeing an app from a well-known company often creates the impression that it has been meaningfully vetted for safety and efficacy, even when that is not the case,โ he says. Some companies are using deceptive advertising to sell their product, he adds. Marketing materials might claim that all of a companyโs health apps are certified, even though only one app has been approved by a regulatory body to treat a particular condition. Or the verbiage might imply the company has clinical evidence proving its application works, even though the app has never been tested independently. Another concern is that updated apps arenโt being vetted, says Maria Palombini, IEEE SAโs director of health care and life sciences global practice lead. โThe original app might have received approval from a regulatory agency, but not the updated version,โ Palombini says. โThere could have been significant changes from the original.โ โNot every medical-related app triggers the same regulatory classification or review across jurisdictions,โ Quintana adds. โThat leaves a large gray zone of clinically relevant but lower-risk apps that havenโt undergone an independent assessment. The IEEE registry was created to help fill these gaps. โIEEE is the best organization to address this problem because this is fundamentally a standards, trust, interoperability, and conformity assessment challenge,โ he says. IEEE โis the worldโs largest technical professional organization, with deep expertise in developing globally recognized standards including in health care, cybersecurity, AI ethics, and interoperability.โ โThrough the IEEE Conformity Assessment Program, we already run rigorous assessment and registry programs,โ Palombini says. โOur neutral, consensus-driven, multidisciplinary approachโbringing together clinicians, regulators, developers, and ethicists without commercial biasโmakes IEEE uniquely positioned to create trustworthy global guardrails that can scale across jurisdictions and support regulatory harmonization.โ How the registry works The assessment framework was developed by a multidisciplinary group of 35 volunteer experts from 10 countries, Quintana says. The panel includes academics, AI experts, app developers, clinicians, ethicists, mental health experts, patient advocates, regulators, researchers, technologists, and those who assess safety in health care. The registry is for any app used for clinical care or therapeutics that claims to demonstrate a medical benefit. That includes apps designed for cardiology, diabetes, mental health, neurology, oncology, rehabilitation, and respiratory diseases, Quintana says. Initially, he says, the focus will be on apps that aim to treat mental health conditions, given the large number of offerings in that area and the registry committeeโs expertise. The submission of apps is voluntary. There is no government mandate that requires a company to use the IEEE registry. The products will be evaluated against about 150 consensus-based criteria across three major areas: Clinical efficacy including therapeutic effectiveness, any sustained benefits, risk management, comparison to standard care, user engagement, and real clinical value. Technical soundness including accessibility, privacy and security, error handling, interoperability, AI governance, usability, and operational quality. Ethical design including bias prevention, patient consent, data governance, conflict-of-interest transparency, responsible use of AI and large language models, and prioritization of public health benefits. IEEE charges a nonrefundable submission fee that covers the cost of the assessment plus the registryโs annual subscription for the first year. Developers first must demonstrate they are a legally established entity before they can complete the app publisher registration form and then submit documentation and attestations about the product. The IEEE review of an app is estimated to take six to eight weeks, Palombini says. The assessment results will be privately shared with the app publisher, she says, and to be listed in the registry, an app must achieve more than 85 percent compliance in each category. Upgraded apps must be submitted and reassessed, Palombini says. Similar to how users are notified when an app on their smart devices has , the registry will be notified when listed apps have a new update available, she says. Applicants who do not pass the assessment are to receive feedback explaining why. They will be given an opportunity to make changes or provide additional documentation, Palombini says. โItโs a pretty methodological process, with checks and balances,โ Quintana says. โWeโre being very transparent about the process.โ Approved apps added to the registry receive an IEEE certification badge and submission identifier, which the company can display on its website, app store listings, and marketing materials. โThe badge serves as visible proof that the app has met the independent, consensus-based assessment for clinical value, technical robustness, and ethical design,โ Quintana says. The registry will be publicly available at no cost, he says. Patients and families seeking safe, trustworthy appsโand payers and insurers evaluating reimbursement potentialโwill find the registry helpful, he says. The application website is open. The public registry page does not yet list a specific count of approved apps because assessments are ongoing. Approved apps and their unique identifiers are to be published when the initial reviews are completed. To learn more, you can watch a webinar recorded in March. The assessment framework that underpins the registry is supporting the formal recognition of IEEE P3962 Standard for Criteria Assessment Framework f
In the late 1940sโwhen computer engineers were grappling with unreliable hardware and noisy transmission environmentsโa team of engineers inside a modest lab at the University of Manchester, England, confronted a problem so fundamental that it threatened the viability of digital computing itself. Machines could generate bits, but they could not reliably read them back. The inconsistent reading back of memory data did not initially present itself as a grand theoretical challenge. It showed up as something more mundane: inconsistent computing results. Engineers including Frederic C. Williams, Tom Kilburn, and G. E. (Tommy) Thomas traced the failures not to logic errors but to the physical behavior of the machines themselves. The team devised a technique for keeping a transmitter and a receiver synchronized without relying on a separate clock signal. Their innovation, known as Manchester code or phase encoding, encoded each bit with a transition in the middle of the bit period, effectively embedding timing information directly into the data stream to be a self-clocking signal. So, even if the signal degraded or the timing drifted slightly, the receiver could continually keep time based on those regular transitions. By eliminating the need for separate clocks and reducing synchronization errors, Manchester code made data transfer more robust across cables and circuits. Those qualities later made it a natural fit for technologies such as Ethernet and early data storage systems. Its self-clocking nature helped standardize how machines communicate, and it laid the groundwork for modern networking and digital communication protocols. On 13 April 2026, this breakthrough was honored with an IEEE Milestone plaque during a ceremony at the University of Manchester. Dignitaries from IEEE and the university attended the ceremony. Embedding timing in signals Those 1940s Manchester University engineers were working on systems that fed into the Manchester Mark I, one of the first practical stored-program machines. When troubles arose, they used oscilloscopes to probe signals. They found that electrical pulses did not arrive with consistent timing. Memory signals also blurred over time, making them harder to read, and when long runs of identical bits occurred, the waveform flattened into stretches with no transitions. That led to a crucial insight: The problem was not just detecting whether a signal was high or low; the system also lost track of when to sample the signal. Without reliable timing markers, even correctly formed signals were misread. Bits could effectively be lost or miscounted because the system fell out of sync. At first, the engineers tried to tame the hardware. They experimented with stabilizing circuits and more consistent pulse generation, attempting to impose a regular rhythm on an inherently unstable system. But the fixes proved fragile, and the electronics of the day could not maintain the required precision. So the Manchester group took a different approach. If the hardware could not provide a dependable clock, the signal itself would have to carry one. Instead of representing data as static levels, each bit changed state, with a guaranteed transition in the middle. Embedding timing in the signal reduced erratic behavior. Machines were suddenly able to reliably transmit, store, and read back dataโan essential step toward practical stored-program computing. Making signals unmistakable The Manchester code addressed several issues at once. Regular transitions allowed continuous timing recovery. Transitions proved easier to detect than static levels, and long runs of identical bits no longer produced flat, ambiguous waveforms. Rather than fighting the imperfections of early electronics, the design worked with them. From lab curiosity to a global standard What began as a local solution in Manchester shaped digital communication systems for decades, including early Ethernet technology, for which timing and shared-medium communication were central challenges. According to Robert Metcalfe, a member of the team that built the first Ethernet system at Xerox PARC in 1973, he and his colleagues relied on Manchester code. โManchester code solved a fundamental problem for us: timing,โ Metcalfe says, explaining that each bit carried its own clock and removed the need for a global synchronized signal. That self-clocking property wasnโt the only benefit provided by the encoding scheme. On a shared coaxial cable, Manchester encoding did more than provide timing. Each transceiver left the medium undrivenโeffectively โoffโโmost of the time, allowing packets from other machines to pass without interference. Even during transmission, a station drove the signal only about half the time, leaving the line undriven during the other half of each bit cycle. This distinctionโbetween a driven signal and an undriven line, rather than simple 1s and 0sโallowed receivers to recover both data and clock timing while also monitoring the cable for other activity. If a transceiver detected a signal when it expected the line to be undriven, the signal indicated that another station was transmitting at the same time. In other words, the system could detect collisions in real time and respond accordingly. The idea has proven durable far beyond local networks. Manchester code is being used aboard the Voyager spacecraft, which are now cruising through interstellar spaceโunderscoring its reliability in extreme environments. The code also has found its way into everyday consumer electronics. Infrared remote controls for televisions and audio equipment commonly rely on Manchester code through protocols such as RC-5, developed by Philips in the early 1980s. The protocol encodes commands as timed infrared signals transmitted by a handsetโs integrated circuit and LED, allowing devices to reliably interpret button presses even through noise and signal distortion. Manufacturers across Europeโand many in the United Statesโadopted the approach, extending Manchester code into the home. Why the Milestone matters An IEEE Milestone designation recognizes technologies with enduring impact. Manchester code qualifies because it solved a foundational timing problem at a critical moment in computing history. Without a way to embed timing in the data itself, early digital systems would have remained fragile and unreliable. Manchester code helped transform them into dependable machines, and it enabled much of todayโs digital communication. โManchester code solved a fundamental problem for us: timing,โ โRobert Metcalfe, an Ethernet inventor Key participants at the plaque dedication ceremony included Tom Coughlin, 2024 IEEE president; Duncan Ivison, University of Manchester president and vice chancellor, and Nagham Saeed, chair of the IEEE U.K. and Ireland Section. Talks by Kees Schouhamer Immink (the 2017 IEEE Medal of Honor laureate probably best known for his work that made compact discs and other high-density digital media practical) and Peter Green (Manchesterโs deputy dean for the engineering faculty) highlighted the codeโs lasting impact on digital data storage and communications. The IEEE Milestone plaque for the Manchester code reads: โAt this site in 1948โ1949, Manchester code was invented for reliably encoding digital data stored on the Manchester Mark I computerโs magnetic drum. It became a standard for computer magnetic tapes and floppy disks and was used in digital communications, including the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft and early Ethernet networks. It found wide use in domestic remote controllers, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and many control network standards.โ Administered by the IEEE History Center and supported by donors, the Milestone program recognizes outstanding technical developments worldwide. The IEEE U.K. and Ireland Section sponsored the nomination.