New York Post
보수 성향
사회
New York couple locked in savage ‘dogfight’ with pet rescue over ownership of foster pups
It’s a ruff story.
🇺🇸 미국 · "FOSTER" · 총 18건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.0
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 11,212건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.0(균형)입니다. 긍정 1건(0.0%)·중립 11,210건(100.0%)·부정 1건(0.0%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 18.7(중도 균형)입니다.
It’s a ruff story.
Jalen Brunson was talking with referee Scott Foster and then seemed to turn his attention toward someone else.
Jalen Brunson’s anger toward referee Scott Foster may have been equivalent to the size of Texas.
This is part two of a Daily Wire series exposing the Biden administration’s previously unreported efforts to enact radical anti-family policies in the name of protecting transgender-identifying children. Part one told the story of Nicole, a mother whose refusal to indulge her daughter’s gender delusions led the state of Oregon to take custody of the ...
The Trump administration is reversing Biden-era rules that tossed Christian families from foster care, reducing homes available to desperate children.
The Trump administration is reversing Biden-era rules that tossed Christian families from foster care, reducing homes available to desperate children.
Italian multi-hyphenate Marco Perego — who was recently on the Cannes red carpet as a producer of Cristian Mungiu’s Palme d’Or winner “Fjord” and Andrey Zvyagintsev’s “Minotaur,” which scooped the Grand Prix — is on a mission to foster “collaboration in cultural expression” at a time when, as he puts it, indie cinema is “under […]
Foster Sylvers, the R&B child star who shot to fame with the group the Sylvers — best known for mega hit "Boogie Fever" — has died, his family said.
Get ready for a summer of teen mayhem, unless blue-city leaders across the country abandon their commitment to fostering disorder in the name of equity.
This movement is not about fostering progressive change: It’s about exploiting progressive causes to commit political violence in a war on all social order.
A formerly incarcerated writer reflects on how the prison system didn’t foster change, but befriending time did.
This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars. *** Earlier this year, when child-welfare officials in Santa Clara County, California, determined that two-year-old Jaxon Juarez’s biological father was unable to care for him, they placed him under the ...
“Social engineering” sounds like something out of a conspiracy thriller, charged with totalitarian control and fringe paranoia. More mundanely, it’s come to be associated with phishing and other scams, in which fraudsters manipulate people into disclosing personal information. Yet the concept is older and more benign: it is the deliberate shaping of human behavior, often at scale. It predates silicon—and became pervasive, and ungoverned, especially once its practitioners learned to hide it. Authoritarian regimes and more recently scammers and big companies have profited from it. To defend ourselves from bad actors, and to benefit from social engineering’s good side, we need to reclaim the name, and govern it prudently. The roots of engineering In 1894, Dutch entrepreneur Jacques van Marken urged companies to hire “social engineers” to manage human systems such as insurance, education, and profit sharing for workers as carefully as they did mechanical ones. Fifteen years later, reformer William H. Tolman published Social Engineering, describing how U.S. industrialists optimized workers’ conditions alongside manufacturing methods. If industrialists could shape steel and electricity on demand, why not society itself? By the 1920s, that confidence had spread. The architect Le Corbusier declared that dwellings were “machines for living in,” imagining cities as orderly lattices where people moved like parts on a conveyor belt. Civilization would run like a Swiss watch. The idea soon darkened. Authoritarian regimes pushed it to extremes, promising to fashion “the New Man.” In Nazi Germany, engineer Fritz Todt founded Organization Todt, a vast state engineering enterprise that emerged from the autobahn highway system and later operated concentration camps using slave labor. In the Soviet Union, leaders adopted U.S. scientific management techniques to plan factory-worker movements and classify populations through centralized records, feeding both rapid industrialization drives and the gulag system of forced labor. The same tools and managerial methods used to build highways and enact five-year plans worked for repression and mass control. By the 1950s, “social engineering” had become a contaminated phrase. The revelations of Nazi and Soviet abuses, along with Cold War critiques of grand social planning turned the term from a progressive slogan into a warning label. Banishing the words pushed the practice underground, making it harder to recognize when it resurfaced in new forms—such as organizational psychology and systems management that still relied on classification and behavioral influence techniques but under softer, less loaded labels. Social engineering’s more subtle spread In the postwar years, the new social-engineering lexicon included “human factors” and “urban planning,” all promising integration rather than command. As computing advanced, the language shifted again: “customer journey mapping” to track interactions, “user experience” to script them. Engineering, which began as a means of reshaping physical space, set its sights on shaping behavior. Digital design features embedded in our smartphones now target our attention and desire. Language helps conceal these modern forms of social engineering. “Data analytics” sounds neutral beside “surveillance.” “Personalization” flatters individuality while still sorting users into predictable categories. “Behavioral nudges” guide decisions without the sense of intrusion. We attach “social” as a favorable modifier to sciences, capital, and media, yet recoil when it meets “engineering.” That discomfort is a clue. Engineering implies control, and control prompts us to ask who directs whom, toward what ends, and with whose permission. Not all social engineering these days is hidden. Hackers don’t need to break a firewall if someone hands over their password. Romance scammers cultivate intimacy the way farmers cultivate crops. They succeed not through force but by exploiting trust. If even these obvious attacks work, the invisible kind, with roots in social engineering, are a shoo-in. Most of the social engineering we encounter is proprietary and beyond our control. Firms build recommendation algorithms tuned to boost engagement and profit with no hearings or right of appeal. Browser and cookie defaults decide what data we surrender. A single autoplay toggle can cost users hours and build unhealthy habits. These are acts of engineering as deliberate as laying a road or redrawing an electoral district. They create a kind of curated itch by which boredom never settles, and satisfaction never arrives. The results are predictable—users click on targeted ads, make purchases, form habits, and lock in opinions. Consent has transformed along with it. Once straightforward and revocable, it is now subtle and persistent, buried in defaults or opaque terms of service too quickly accepted. You remain free to opt out, much as you are free to refuse roads or electricity. Consent has become the preselected setting of modern life. When social engineering operated more in the open, citizens could contest it, at least in societies with responsive government. Today’s invisible version diffuses accountability so thoroughly that scrutiny becomes hard to direct. Despite recent congressional hearings on social media’s impact on youth mental health and juries agreeing that firms are knowingly designing algorithms that cause harm, pinpointing responsibility remains elusive. When the mechanism is buried inside a system used by billions, we cannot easily point to a single decision-maker or trace the precise moment of manipulation. Today’s social engineering is less overt and theatrical than its predecessors. Earlier versions arrived on public posters and loudspeakers for mass audiences. Today’s version is more intimate, delivered through personal devices and constant feeds tailored to the individual. The model succeeds because participation feels like freedom, not control. Not all social engineering is dystopian. Well-kept parks foster community, accessible buildings extend dignity, vaccines and seatbelts save lives. Even in the digital realm, positive examples exist: browser extensions that automatically block hidden trackers, search engines that refuse to build personalized surveillance profiles, and decentralized social platforms that give users greater control over their own data and feeds. The term “social engineering” still unsettles, though. But “asocial” engineering, which ignores human consequences entirely, is worse. Recognition of the human dimension to engineering is the beginning of repair. Only by seeing the machinery clearly and naming it honestly can we decide who engineers what and why. The machinery will not dismantle itself. Once named, it becomes subject to choice. That negotiation of purpose, power, and process are the defining political questions of any real democracy. We cannot ensure that social engineering serves and sustains society so long as we dodge the words.
For years, the field of robotics has used the terms “dull, dirty, and dangerous” (DDD) to describe the types of tasks or jobs where robots might be useful—by doing work that’s undesirable for people. A classic example of a DDD job is one of “repetitive physical labor on a steaming hot factory floor involving heavy machinery that threatens life and limb.” But determining which human activities fit into these categories is not as straightforward as it seems. What exactly is a “dull” task, and who makes that assumption? Is “dirty” work just about needing to wash your hands afterwards, or is there also an aspect of social stigma? What data can we rely on to classify jobs as “dangerous?” Our recent work (which was not dull at all) tackles these questions and proposes a framework to help roboticists understand the job context for our technology. First, we did an empirical analysis of robotics publications between 1980 and 2024 that mention DDD and found that only 2.7 percent define DDD and only 8.7 percent provide examples of tasks or jobs. The definitions vary, and many of the examples aren’t particularly specific (for example, “industrial manufacturing,” “home care”). Next, we reviewed the social science literature in anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology to develop better definitions for “dull,” “dirty,” and “dangerous” work. Again, while it might seem intuitive which tasks to put into these buckets, it turns out that there are some underlying social, economic, and cultural factors that matter. Dangerous Work: Occupations or tasks that result in injury or risk of harm It’s possible to measure the danger of a task or job by using reported information. There are administrative records and surveys that provide numbers on occupational injury rates and hazardous risk factors. While that seems straightforward, it’s important to understand how this data was collected, reported, and verified. First, occupational injuries tend to be underreported, with some studies estimating up to 70 percent of cases missing in administrative databases. Second, injuries and risk factors are rarely disaggregated by characteristics like gender, migration status, formal/informal employment, and work activities. For example, because most personal protective equipment—such as masks, vests, and gloves—are sized for men, women in dangerous work environments face increased safety risks. These caveats are an opportunity for robotics to be helpful. If we went out and looked for it, we could probably find some less obviously dangerous work where robotics might be an important intervention, not to mention some groups that are disproportionately affected and would benefit from more workplace safety. Dirty Work: Occupations or tasks that are physically, socially, or morally tainted Colloquially, most people might think of dirty work as involving physical dirtiness, such as trash removal, cleaning, or dealing with hazardous substances. But social science literature makes clear that dirty work is also about stigma. Socially tainted jobs are often servile or involve interacting with stigmatized groups (for example, correctional officers), and morally tainted jobs include tasks that people commonly perceive as sinful, deceptive, or otherwise defying norms of civility (like a stripper or a collection agent). “Dirty work” is a social construct that can vary across time (like tattoo industry stigma in the United States) and culture (such as nursing in the U.S. versus in Bangladesh). One way to measure whether work is “dirty” is by using the closely related concept of occupational prestige, captured through quantitative surveys where people rank jobs. Another way to measure it is through qualitative data, like ethnographies and interviews. Similar to “dangerous,” we see some hidden opportunities for robotics in “dirty” work. But one of our more interesting takeaways from the data is that a lower-ranked job can be something that the workers themselves enjoy or find immense pride and meaning in. If we care about what tasks are truly undesirable, understanding this worker perspective is important. Dull Work: Occupations or tasks that are repetitive and lacking in autonomy When it comes to defining dull work, what matters most is workers’ own experiences. Outsiders can make a lot of false assumptions about what tasks have value and meaning. Sometimes things that seem boring or routine create the right conditions for developing skills and competence, such as the concentration needed for woodworking, or for socializing and support, when tasks are done alongside others. Instead of assuming that repetitive work is negative, it’s important to examine qualitative data on how people experience the work and what purpose it serves for them. DDD: An actionable framework In our paper, we propose a framework to help the robotics community explore how automation impacts individual jobs. For each term—dull, dirty, and dangerous—the framework gathers key pieces of information to reflect on what physical or social aspects of the task are, in fact, DDD. Worker perspective is an important part of all three considerations. The framework also emphasizes awareness of context—meaning the physical and social environment of an occupation and industry that can influence the DDD nature of a task. Our corresponding worksheet suggests existing data sources to draw on and encourages us to seek out multiple perspectives and consider potential sources of bias in the information. What makes tasks dull, dirty, or dangerous depends on the perspective of the humans doing those tasks.RAI Let’s take, for example, the waste and recycling industry. The world generates over 2 billion tonnes of waste annually, and this figure is expected to rise to nearly 4 billion tonnes by 2050. Intuitively, trash collection seems like a job that hits all the Ds. Going through our worksheet, we confirm that globally, workers in this industry face significant health hazards (dangerous), and waste collection is ranked as a low-status job (dirty), although interestingly, many workers take pride in providing this essential service. The job is also repetitive, but there are aspects that make it not dull. Specifically, workers cite the day-to-day interaction with their coworkers (which includes extensive insider vocabulary, work hacks, and mutual aid groups) and task variety as two of the most enjoyable aspects of the job. Task variety includes inspecting their vehicle and equipment, driving their truck, coordinating with crew members, lifting bins and bags, detecting incorrect sorting of waste, and unloading at the end destination. This finding matters because some types of robotic solutions will eliminate the parts of the job that workers most appreciate. For instance, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends the adoption of automated side loader trucks and collision avoidance systems. This innovation increases safety, which is great, but it also results in a sole worker operating a joystick in a cab, surrounded by sensor and camera surveillance. Instead, we should challenge ourselves to think of solutions that make jobs safer without making them terrible in a different way. To do this, we need to understand all aspects of what makes a job dull, dirty, or dangerous (or not). Our framework aims to facilitate this understanding. Finally, it’s important to note that DDD is only one of many possible approaches to classify what work might be better served by robots. There are lots of ways we could think about which types of tasks or jobs to automate (for example, economic impact or environmental sustainability). Given the popularity of DDD in robotics, we chose this common phrase as a starting point. We would love to see more work in this space, whether it’s data collection on DDD itself or the creation of other frameworks. At RAI, we believe that the fusion of robotics and social sciences opens a whole new world of information, perspectives, opportunities, and value. It fosters a culture of curiosity and mutual learning, and allows us to create actionable tools for anyone in robotics who cares about societal impact. Dull, Dirty, Dangerous: Understanding the Past, Present, and Future of a Key Motivation for Robotics, by Nozomi Nakajima, Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, Caitrin Lynch, and Kate Darling from the RAI Institute, was presented at the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) in Edinburgh, Scotland.
This sponsored article is brought to you by Melbourne Convention Bureau (MCB) supported by Business Events Australia. Melbourne’s reputation as a global events city, from the Australian Open tennis and Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix to hosting NFL regular season games, now intersects with a different form of scale: large-scale compute, data-intensive research, and advanced engineering. Long recognized for delivering complex international events, the city is applying the same organisational capability to the infrastructure that underpins modern AI research, positioning Melbourne at the convergence of global convening and high-performance digital systems. Consistently ranked among the world’s most livable cities, Melbourne was named Time Out’s Best City in the World in 2026, the first Australian city to hold the title. Melbourne, Australia’s premier conference destination. Tourism Australia More materially for research and innovation, Melbourne is also the nation’s fastest‑growing capital, attracting increasing concentrations of engineering and technology talent, investment and international engagement. Australia’s artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem is entering a new phase, defined less by isolated initiatives and more by the convergence of compute infrastructure, research intensity and international collaboration. Melbourne sits at this intersection. Melbourne’s trajectory highlights what enables research at scale: access to frontier-grade compute, proximity to industry-ready infrastructure, and repeated opportunities for global research communities to convene. Sovereign AI compute, expanding hyperscale data center campuses and a growing pipeline of international research-led conferences are reshaping the city’s research landscape. Together, these elements position Melbourne as a focal point for applied AI research, advanced engineering and data-intensive science. The growing global influence of AI engineering, underscored by NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang receiving the 2026 IEEE Medal of Honor, reflects the scale of this shift. In Melbourne, these factors form a reinforcing research flywheel linking infrastructure, discovery and collaboration. Rather than focusing on startup density or short-term commercial output, Melbourne’s trajectory highlights what enables research at scale: access to frontier-grade compute, proximity to industry-ready infrastructure, and repeated opportunities for global research communities to convene. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang received the 2026 IEEE Medal of Honor.IEEE Sovereign AI foundations The most recent cornerstone of Melbourne’s AI capability is MAVERIC (Monash AdVanced Environment for Research and Intelligent Computing), Australia’s largest university-based AI supercomputer. Built and deployed by Monash University in partnership with NVIDIA, Dell Technologies, and CDC Data Centres, MAVERIC has been engineered specifically for large scale AI and data intensive science, with medical research representing a key priority. Indeed, in these regards MAVERIC has been designed to function as a Next Generation Trusted Research Environment thus ensuring that it is state-of-the-art and provides a safe and secure framework for the analysis of large sensitive datasets. Designed to support research projects including cancer and neurodegenerative disease detection, clinical trial analysis and drug discovery through to materials science and engineering, MAVERIC enables Australian researchers to train and evaluate large models domestically while keeping highly sensitive datasets secure and under national jurisdiction. This sovereign design is particularly relevant in fields such as medical research where privacy, regulation or intellectual property constraints limit the use of offshore cloud resources. Monash University Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Sharon Pickering with researchers [left to right] Professor Anton Peleg, Professor Victoria Mar, Professor James Whisstock, Vice-President (Strategy and Major Projects) Teresa Finlayson, and Professor Patrick Kwan.Eamon Gallagher (Australian Financial Review) Technically, the system reflects the latest shifts in high performance AI architecture. Built on NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 platforms and integrated using Dell’s rack scale infrastructure, MAVERIC employs closed loop liquid cooling to reduce water consumption compared with conventional air-cooled systems, aligning large scale compute growth with sustainability objectives while supporting high density, high throughput workloads. Professor James Whisstock, Deputy Dean Research of Monash’s Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences commented, “MAVERIC provides a huge leap forward in our compute capability that will revolutionize our researchers’ ability to address the most challenging and important research questions across the fields of medical research, information technology, and STEM disciplines. It will seed wonderful new cross-disciplinary collaborations, underpin the work of our best and brightest young researchers and will allow our scientists to continue to make major discoveries that positively impact the Australian and global population more broadly.” “MAVERIC provides a huge leap forward in our compute capability that will revolutionize our researchers’ ability to address the most challenging and important research questions across the fields of medical research, information technology, and STEM disciplines.” —Professor James Whisstock, Deputy Dean Research of Monash’s Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences Monash University frames MAVERIC not as a standalone asset, but as part of the national research infrastructure, intended to strengthen collaboration across academia, healthcare, government and industry. This approach positions Melbourne at the forefront of sovereign AI enabled research in the region. Data center scale as research infrastructure The infrastructure demands of modern AI research extend well beyond individual systems. Melbourne’s expanding data center footprint now supports hyperscale compute, applied AI deployment and large-scale research workloads simultaneously. Total data center investment, US$ billions.Source: Data Centres Global Report 2025 In February 2026, CDC Data Centres opened its first Melbourne campus in Brooklyn, with two live facilities and a third in planning. Combined with CDC’s Laverton campus, Melbourne is projected to host more than 800 megawatts of sovereign digital capacity, critical for AI workloads requiring sustained access to high-density power, cooling and secure environments. Parallel investment is underway in Fishermans Bend, where NEXTDC is developing a AUD $2 billion AI and digital infrastructure hub adjacent to the Innovation Precinct. Planned facilities include an AI Factory, a Mission Critical Operations Center and a Technology Center of Excellence, enabling sovereign AI, high-performance computing and cross-sector collaboration across health, defence and finance. Melbourne hosts Australia’s largest cluster of AI firms, with 188 companies, and more than 40 data centers currently operate across Victoria. The Victorian Government has complemented this growth with an initial AUD $5.5 million investment in the Sustainable Data Center Action Plan. Together, these developments reinforce Melbourne’s role as a national and increasingly global hub for high-performance AI infrastructure as model complexity and infrastructure dependency continue to accelerate. Applied AI research at scale Monash University is home to MAVERIC, Australia’s largest university-based AI supercomputer, built and deployed by Monash in partnership with NVIDIA, Dell Technologies, and CDC Data Centres.Monash University Melbourne’s research strength is underpinned by a dense university network with deep capability across AI, data science and engineering. Institutions including Monash University, the University of Melbourne, Deakin University, La Trobe University, RMIT University and Swinburne University of Technology collectively support research across machine learning, robotics, human-computer interaction, extended reality and advanced manufacturing. This concentration fosters applied collaboration where AI intersects with medicine, sustainability, cognitive systems and immersive technologies. For visiting researchers, it provides access not only to academic expertise but also to live infrastructure environments where research can be tested and validated, reinforcing Melbourne’s position as one of the Asia-Pacific’s most integrated AI research ecosystems. Conferences as research accelerators Plenary session at Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center.Melbourne Convention Bureau Melbourne’s selection as host city for a growing number of international technology conferences reflects the convergence of research capability and infrastructure maturity. In September 2026, Data Center World Australia and The AI Summit Australia will be co-located at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center, bringing together global leaders across AI, digital infrastructure and enterprise technology. The pairing highlights a broader reality: advances in AI are inseparable from the infrastructure that enables them. Melbourne’s expanding data center footprint now supports hyperscale compute, applied AI deployment and large-scale research workloads simultaneously. Research-led conferences are also expanding Melbourne’s global footprint. ICONIP 2026, hosted by Deakin University, will bring up to 700 researchers in neural networks and machine learning, followed in 2027 by IEEE VR, the leading conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces, attracting up to 1,000 delegates. In this context, conferences function not simply as events, but as infrastructure for knowledge transfer, supporting standards exchange, collaboration and system-level learning at global scale. A global platform for advancing research Sovereign compute, data center scale and a strong conference pipeline create a reinforcing cycle, enabling researchers to engage directly with infrastructure and industry well beyond the event itself. By closing the gap between theory and deployment, Melbourne supports deeper technical exchange and more enduring global research networks. This role was recognized in 2025 when the IEEE awarded Melbourne Convention Bureau the 2025 Organisational Supporting Friend of IEEE Member and Geographic Activities (MGA) — the first convention bureau in the Asia Pacific region to receive the acknowledgement as a result of the longstanding partnership with the IEEE Victorian Section. Melbourne Convention Bureau (MCB) representative Fatima Aboudrar, Senior Business Development Manager, with Vijay S. Paul, Immediate Past Chair, IEEE Victorian Section, receiving Supporting Friend Member recognition in 2025. As AI research becomes increasingly dependent on infrastructure scale, sovereign capability, and global collaboration, Melbourne is moving beyond hosting conversations to actively enabling the systems that advance AI and data‑driven research at global scale. Conference support in Melbourne Your browser does not support the video tag. Why host a conference in Melbourne, Australia.Melbourne Convention Bureau This ecosystem is underpinned by Melbourne’s highly accessible city center, where world-class venues, research institutions and industry hubs are located in close proximity. Free public transport and a compact city footprint enable seamless movement from conference floor to real-world application. Melbourne Convention Bureau (MCB) is a not-for-profit state government agency with over 60 years’ experience, that provides IEEE and its members with free support to bring international conferences to Melbourne, Australia. MCB’s support spans early-stage exploration and international bidding through to securing government funding, connecting organizers with venues, accommodation and event suppliers, and providing destination support for conference planning and delivery. Organizations considering a conference in Australia are encouraged to connect with MCB’s dedicated team, which supports IEEE conferences in Melbourne. Enquiries can be directed to info@melbournecb.com.au.
Given how integral the Internet has become to everyday tasks such as shopping, paying bills, and holding virtual meetings, it’s interesting that nearly 30 percent of the global population still has no access to it. More than 2 billion people are still offline, according to a report released in November by the International Telecommunication Union. More and more people are being connected, though, thanks to IEEE Future Networks’ Connecting the Unconnected (CTU) and similar programs. Since 2021, the technical community has been working to accelerate the development, standardization, and deployment of 5G, 6G, and future generations. Every year, CTU holds a worldwide competition to seek out innovators who are in the early stages of developing technologies or applications to provide greater access. It also holds an annual summit that brings together experts, community leaders, and other interested parties to discuss strategies to expand access and foster digital inclusion. CTU expanded in several ways last year. It launched regional summits to focus on local connectivity issues, organized community-focused events, and established an expanded mentorship program to further support contest winners and the next generation of technological innovators impacting humanity. The program also partners with the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA) to develop guidelines for some of the submitted innovations. “IEEE Future Networks has created a community to bring all these initiatives working on digital connectivity together in a single platform and leverage the IEEE brand to help raise the visibility of their work,” says IEEE Life Fellow Sudhir Dixit, a CTU cochair and a Basic Internet Foundation cofounder, which also works to expand Internet access. A contest for new connectivity methods The CTU challenge, launched in 2021, typically receives 200 to 300 submissions each year, Dixit says. Last year 245 projects from 52 countries were submitted. Participants include academics, nonprofit organizations, startups, and students. Projects can be entered into one of three categories. The Technology Applications category is for new connectivity methods or innovations that broaden broadband access. Those who improve the affordability of Internet services can enter the Business Model category. The Community Enablement category is for strategies that promote public broadband adoption. After selecting a category, entrants choose between two tracks based on their project’s maturity. The proof-of-concept route is for early-stage but functional technology that has already produced results. The conceptual path is for projects in the theoretical phase that have not undergone full testing. “IEEE Future Networks has created a community to bring all these initiatives working on digital connectivity together in a single platform and leverage the IEEE brand to help raise the visibility of their work.” —Sudhir Dixit, Connecting the Unconnected cochair Last year’s challenge submission period was from March to June, with judging phases from June through November. The 20 winners presented their solutions in December at a virtual Winners Summit. Fourteen projects received prize money, ranging from US $500 to $2,500. Six finalists earned an honorable mention at the summit. The awards amounts have varied over the years, based on the sponsorship. Among the winners were a solar-powered community broadband network in Tanzania, a low-cost method for accessing the Internet that uses FM radio and a short message service (SMS), and a strategy for utilizing India’s rural broadband infrastructure to deliver medical services to people living in isolated, tribal, and other underserved regions. “Our job is to help further develop the technology, look for gaps, and see if it is good enough to be applied to rural villages, like those in Africa and India,” says IEEE Fellow Ashutosh Dutta, who is a CTU cochair and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore. “The idea behind the contest is to make sure the technology actually gets implemented at the grassroots level and is being used by the local community.” This year’s challenge submission period runs until 19 June, with judging phases from July through October. The finalists of the 2025 IEEE Connect the Unconnected challenge describe their projects.IEEE Future Networks Local connectivity discussions The CTU program hosted three regional summits last year. The North American event was held in September in Washington, D.C. In November, the Global/Asia-Pacific meeting took place in Bangalore, India; it was co-located with the IEEE Future Networks World Forum. The Europe, Middle East, and Africa summit also was held in November, in Abuja, Nigeria. Topics discussed at the summits included infrastructure solutions for universal connectivity; sustainable business models; scaling homegrown technologies; and policy, regulation, and financing issues. As of press time, the dates for this year’s regional summits had not been announced. Community-focused events To help bridge the gap between ideas and their deployment, the Connect a Community event was established to demonstrate how some new technologies might benefit people. The inaugural event was held in November in Bengaluru, India. During the daylong program, 10 of the challenge winners demonstrated their connectivity solutions to villagers from seven rural communities. Dutta credits IEEE Life Fellow Rakesh Kumar with devising the event. Kumar chairs IEEE Future Directions, which was where Future Networks got its start in 2017 as the 5G Initiative. “Kumar wants to ensure the winning technologies are going to be useful for the community,” Dutta says. Providing entrepreneurs with business skills Dixit says the Future Networks team believed that simply conducting a competition and distributing prizes wasn’t enough. “We wanted to follow up with the winners, monitor their progress, and help them turn their ideas into a business,” he says. To accomplish that, IEEE launched the Empowerment Through Mentorship program, in which budding entrepreneurs are paired with industry leaders and experienced mentors who provide them with 1,000 days of guidance, coaching them on scaling up their business. “We launched the mentorship program to further the cause,” Dixit says. “These people may be good at developing technology, but they don’t know the marketing challenges, how to raise money, and other factors.” The Lemelson Foundation, an organization in Portland, Ore., that partners with IEEE, collaborated on the mentorship program. The foundation’s philanthropic strategy is to cultivate a robust ecosystem for entrepreneurs in East Africa, India, and the United States. It does so by providing the entrepreneurs with tools including financing options and access to communities that share their passion. The foundation chose to partner with IEEE “because of its powerful international network and focus on electrical engineering, which is a critical element of communications and energy infrastructure globally,” says Kory Murphy, Lemelson’s program officer for U.S. invention and entrepreneurship. “Other factors include IEEE’s focus on nontraditional or disadvantaged areas in India,” Murphy says, “and its recognition that mentorship is critical for the successful deployment of new technologies.” IEEE began an early pilot project in 2023 with support of a grant from the Lemelson Foundation, to determine if a sustained entrepreneurship mentorship program was valuable and necessary, he says. It then conducted a survey through 2024 to collect information to better understand the needs of stakeholders, mentors, and entrepreneurs in hard-to-reach areas in India. While the early pilot program was restricted to that country, its intent was to learn from the experience and share the findings globally, he says. “Our job is to help further develop the technology, look for gaps, and see if it is good enough to be applied to rural villages, like those in Africa and India.” —Ashutosh Dutta, Connecting the Unconnected cochair “The foundation’s involvement was aimed at testing certain activities, partnership strategies, and understanding the budgetary requirements for a prepilot program,” he says. “The primary goal of the foundation is to enable conditions for innovation to occur within regional systems, especially addressing the opportunity for sustained, systematic, and relational mentorship in technology innovation.” The Empowerment Through Mentorship program is structured into three tiers. One focuses on individuals and their needs, the program/technical level focuses on the invention, and the venture level guides participants from the initial concept through product testing and validation. Within each track, participants engage in activities such as networking, securing financial support, and pitching their innovations, Murphy says. “The 1,000-day approach reflects the belief that it requires a long period of time to coach and support those who traditionally are excluded,” he says. CTU mentors can be IEEE members or nonmembers who are successful entrepreneurs and own small or large companies, Dixit says. They also can work in academia. “They need to be passionate about training and mentoring other people,” Dixit says. “We have created a curriculum that covers topics such as ways to get financing from investors and how to turn ideas into a profitable business. It’s not the technology that will make the product successful; it’s everything else that goes into it.” Rural broadband architecture standards To determine whether any of the challenge’s submitted projects have the potential to become a standard, the CTU working group collaborates with the IEEE SA Industry Connections program’s 6G Rural Connectivity and Intelligent Village activity. Projects considered for standards do not have to be winners. Any project that has successfully passed the first phase, completed the second-phase requirements, and requested a review may be considered. Typically, about half of the submitted projects are reviewed for possible standard implications, Dutta says. “We selected about 60 submissions that could be potentially standardized,” he says. “Out of those, we work with IEEE SA’s rapid reactive standards activity group to narrow them down to five or 10 that can be potentially standardized. “The CTU program is not only about developing a technology or implementing it, but also standardizing it so that people around the world can use the standard.” One such project led to the development of IEEE P1962, “Standard for Providing Broadband Connectivity to Rural Infrastructure by Utilizing Solar Panels as Optical Communication Receivers.” It specifies an architecture for an optical receiver that uses solar panels and associated circuitry to provide energy-efficient, affordable, and high-speed optical wireless communication. “CTU has created a platform for the world to bring their ideas to one single place where people can talk to each other about them,” Dixit says. “We are a unifying force. We bring these many dimensions together to connect the unconnected.” CTU Challenge Winner: Community Radio Bolo The Connecting the Unconnected program offers contestants benefits that extend beyond the recognition and rewards. One participant who benefited is Ritu Srivastava, a telecommunications engineer and IEEE member. She placed first in the 2022 technical concept category for her project, Community Radio Bolo (CR Bolo). The verb bolo means speak in Hindi. Internet services in India’s rural areas are either unavailable or have spotty coverage. People there rely on community radio stations to get news about local events and issues. There are about 300 such stations in India, Srivastava says. To provide broadband Internet access in the Bhadrak district of Odisha, India, she developed a cost-effective hybrid network that uses an online and offline wireless mesh network installed on the tower of community radio station Radio Bulbul. Several transceiver locations, known as access points, are located at schools and community centers that are within a 5- to 7-kilometer radius, connecting them with Radio Bulbul. CR Bolo includes a plug-and-play interactive voice response system that is coupled with the hybrid wireless network. The automated telephony technology routes callers using voice commands or a telephone’s keypad to the appropriate department. The system also has a direct-to-consumer platform where manufacturers sell their products through websites or mobile apps. “CR Bolo is a unique method of leveraging rural traditional technologies and infrastructure combined with modern technology to provide meaningful access to communities,” Srivastava says, “improving livelihood opportunities and creating social and economic viability for CR stations.” She says she plans to expand the project to other rural communities in India. She will incorporate a large language model and offer a learning management system to deliver training programs and educational courses, she says. Winning CTU inspired her to become a more active IEEE volunteer, she says. She is working with the IEEE Standards Association to develop guidelines for the architecture of broadband technology used in rural areas. Because of her entrepreneurial experience, CTU hired her in 2023 to assist with the challenge and the Empowerment Through Mentorship program. Srivastava is a director at Jadeite Solutions in New Delhi. The consulting company offers nonprofit organizations that are developing socioeconomic programs with project evaluation, impact assessment, financial reviews, and similar services. She credits CTU with giving her and her community-centered model more exposure: “The CTU challenge has given me a lot of other opportunities in terms of networking, funding resources, publishing my research in IEEE journals, and presenting at national and international conferences.”
When Ana Inês Inácio goes to work at the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) in The Hague, she thinks about signals most people never notice: radio waves moving between satellites, sensors, and future wireless networks. The integrated circuits the research scientist designs lay the foundation for next-generation RF sensor systems critical to advancing radar technologies. Ana Inês Inácio EMPLOYER Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, TNO TITLE Scientist IEEE MEMBER GRADE Senior member ALMA MATER University of Aveiro, in Portugal Those invisible RF signals are only part of what earned the IEEE senior member her global recognition. Inácio recently received the IEEE–Eta Kappa Nu Outstanding Young Professional Award for “leadership in IEEE Young Professionals, fostering innovation and inclusivity, and pioneering advancements in RF sensor systems, bridging technical excellence with impactful community engagement.” The recognition from IEEE’s honor society reflects a career built along two parallel paths: advancing RF circuit design while helping engineers worldwide build professional communities. “I’ve always liked building things,” Inácio says. “Sometimes that means circuits; sometimes it means helping people connect and grow together.” That blend of technical innovation and global leadership gives her work impact far beyond the laboratory. EE lessons at the kitchen table Inácio grew up in Vales do Rio, a rural village near Covilhã in central Portugal. The region was known for farming and textiles, she says. Many residents worked in the textile industry, including her grandfather, who repaired machinery such as industrial looms. He became her first engineering teacher without ever holding the formal title. Through correspondence courses delivered by mail, he taught himself electrical systems. At home, he explained electricity to his granddaughter while he repaired the household’s appliances and wiring. “He would show me why something broke and how we could fix it,” she recalls. It sparked her curiosity. Her mother was a tailor who later managed other tailors. Her father left his factory job to attend culinary school and now cooks at an elder-care facility. Curiosity was a trait that ran through the family. By high school, Inácio was drawn equally to mathematics and physics and to biology and geology, she says. Encouragement from teachers and an uncle, an engineer, ultimately steered her toward electronics engineering. Conducting research on integrated circuits In 2008 she enrolled in an integrated master’s degree program in electrical and telecommunications engineering at the Universidade de Aveiro in Portugal, a five-year degree that combined undergraduate and graduate studies. An opportunity to study abroad changed her path. In 2012 she moved to the Netherlands to study at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) through a six-month European exchange program with UAveiro. A professor encouraged her to stay on, so she completed her final year of masters in the Netherlands. She focused on techniques to improve the linearization of RF power amplifiers at Thales. The company, based in Hengelo, Netherlands, designs and produces electronics for defense and security. She earned her master’s degree from UAveiro in 2013. After graduating, she joined the integrated circuit design group at the University of Twente, in The Netherlands, conducting collaborative research as part of a nationally funded program on linearization techniques for RF front-end systems. The experience introduced her to international research culture and persuaded her to pursue a career abroad, she says. Engineering the future of wireless Inácio joined TNO in 2018 as a junior scientist and innovator: her first professional industry job. Today she designs integrated RF front-end systems—the circuits that allow devices to transmit and receive wireless signals. The components sit at the core of modern communications, enabling sensor networks, satellite links, and emerging 6G technologies. Her work aims to tackle a central challenge: getting greater performance from smaller chips. “As communication evolves, we need more bandwidth to transfer more data at higher speeds,” she says. “The question is how much complexity you can integrate into one system while keeping it efficient.” Unlike commercial lab environments, which reuse established designs, research projects often start from scratch. Each transmit-receive chain—the signal path that converts digital data to radio waves and back again—is tailored to specific requirements. Her work focuses on improving key circuit characteristics including linearity (ensuring that the signals that go out of the antenna are not distorted) as well as noise reduction (so design blocks can be optimized). Advanced design techniques help devices communicate more reliably while consuming less energy, a critical need for large sensor networks such as the Internet of Things, she says. Artificial intelligence is beginning to influence her field, she says: “AI is already helping us work faster. The real challenge is learning how to use it to make better designs, not just quicker ones.” A parallel vocation with IEEE While her technical career flourished in research labs, an additional journey unfolded through IEEE. Inácio joined the organization in 2009 as a student after discovering UAveiro’s student branch. What began as curiosity evolved into a long-term leadership path. She advanced through roles within Region 8—covering Europe, Africa, and the Middle East—one of the organization’s most culturally diverse regions. She was the student branch’s vice chair, and the region’s student representative for more than 22,000 IEEE members. She also served as the Young Professionals Affinity Group chair for the IEEE Benelux Section, which encompasses Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Currently, she serves as the immediate past chair of the Region 8 Young Professionals Committee, and vice chair and IEEE Member and Geographical Activities representative on the IEEE Young Professionals Committee. In those roles, she represents close to 135,000 IEEE members. In addition, she is an active member of the IEEE Microwave Theory and Technology Society, currently serving as its Young Professionals liaison. Her involvement with IEEE has boosted her professional confidence, she says. “IEEE didn’t directly give me promotions at my day job, but it gave me leadership skills, networking opportunities, and the ability to work with people from everywhere,” she says. Those experiences now shape her collaborations at TNO, where international teamwork is essential. The IEEE-HKN Outstanding Young Professional Award recognizes that combination of technical excellence and community impact, she says. Looking back, Inácio sees a clear thread connecting her childhood curiosity, her international career, and her IEEE leadership: Engineering, she says, is ultimately about people as much as it is about technology.
It would be odd to see a TOC Mahal in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Often spotted at U.S. Army Combat Training Center rotations or large home-station exercises, TOC Mahals are sprawling tactical operation centers (TOCs) made from a series of connected tents, vehicles, and generators. They typically have maps posted at entrances to help people find their way through a labyrinth of desks, chairs, television screens, and cables. Most division command posts, many brigade command posts, and truly exceptional battalion command posts meet the criteria of a TOC Mahal. At their best, these behemoths foster collaborative planning by co-locating command teams The post The Army Needs to Build Better Command Posts appeared first on War on the Rocks.