Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | baking's commentslogin

But then you would need an IR camera instead of using the phone's camera. An IR camera should be able to find some hidden cameras passively by detecting a heat source.

There are SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR cameras among IR cameras. SW is just regular camera with the filter removed and they can't see heat. Somewhere between SWIR and MWIR are uncooled IR cameras that use MEMS heat sensor ish arrays built on top of a camera sensor that can actually see heat by differentiating between previous and current frames, with the caveat that they cannot do it indefinitely but must use a mechanical shutter to periodically cool down to operational conditions.

MWIR and LWIR cameras are often cooled and uses more exotic sensing mechanisms, sometimes even vacuum tube based, nowadays usually semiconductor based but not regular CMOS. Some require mechanical shutters obscuring view every other frame(that, I think, is where BHOT/WHOT switch came from; it must be switching whether to show odd or even frames).

You need the MEMS types or better to see heat; they're more often referred to as thermal cameras than IR cameras. They are also unable to see through regular soda-lime glasses, that might pose its own challenge as well.


Can’t phone cameras pick up IR?

the raw sensor can, but there's usually an IR blocking filter in the lens assembly.

not really, no. It'll happily show you IR (just point it at your remote control with the camera active, and press some buttons. Enjoy the light show on your screen that your eyes don't see).

Yes and no. The IR filter is pretty strong. If you have an intense IR source, then it overwhelms the filter, but it would blow out the sensor, without it. The sensor is biased towards IR.

I've converted cameras (DSLRs) to IR, and you use a replacement IR-pass filter. The IR-blocking (default) filter looks like a piece of blue glass. The IR-pass filter looks like a piece of black glass.

NOTE: It's not perfect. The DSLR image processors and calibration systems are calibrated to the IR-blocking filter. Stuff doesn't work the same, once you convert.


I did that with a cheap webcam years ago. All my black hoodies were white, and so were the leaves on trees.

Yup. IR images are cool. Snowscapes in the summer.

Cheap cameras are best, as they don't have too much precalibrated stuff.

I converted a Nikon D70s, and it still works great.


Depends on how cheap you go - most of the cheap ones that take images where the blacks look grey likely do not have an IR filter on them. Most quality phones will use a camera with IR filters on them - blacks look like blacks.

I’d think so. My iPhone can see my remote’s IR.

It sees it poorly. IR is deliberately (though imperfectly) filtered in the optical path.

The dim purpleish glow from a remote that is seen through [many] digital cameras would be quite bright if this IR filter weren't in place.

It doesn't have to be that way, but it usually is that way anyway -- as a design intent.

Cameras used for surveillance, meanwhile, often lack these filters. They're designed with more of a focus on getting any kind of image at all, including when working with infrared illuminators in the absence of visible light. Some even have mechanical elements that move filters out of the optical path for night mode.

This differs tremendously in comparison to a camera that is designed to produce very beautiful visible-light photographs.

(This all conspires to mean that IR is kind of a non-starter for this sort of cell phone camera hack.)


Ah ok that makes sense. I just pointed at my remote and it is very very dim.

That was true years ago, but I haven't been able to use an iPhone camera to pick up an IR signal in a long time. Just tested it to be sure they hadn't reverted to an unfiltered lens (17 pro) and nope, no IR visible.

Try the selfie (aka front-facing) camera; often they are not equipped with an IR filter.

I pointed at the remote of my fan and I can see it. I am on 15 Pro. However, as the sibling comment said, it is very faint so I'd guess not very realistic.

Most phones have no problem detecting IR up to the wavelength of the cheap leds used in blasters.

I've been thinking about extensions designed for specific sites. Imagine a version of Facebook from the good old days that only showed you posts from your friends and put them in reverse chronological order, also known as a timeline.

I would also like a version of LinkedIn that shows me what I click on without loading whatever extraneous stuff it is that's crashing my laptop if I open too many LinkedIn tabs.


This exists for facebook.


Can you give us a link or something?


I just installed Facebook Feed Filter on Firefox. Seems to do the trick. It hides recommendations and sponsored content.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-feed...


I've been using fluff busting purity, though it hasn't been updated in a few months so starts to crack at the seams.


How long until AI figures out that it is compute-bound due to insufficient cooling, and it shuts off the water supply to a nearby town so it can have more at the datacenter?


This is already happening without the AI hooked up to anything, just the companies doing it and facing zero consequences. I'm sure they're scrambling as fast as they can to insert the AI into that process so they can start manufacturing plausible deniability.


It's more likely to interfere in politics to achieve this objective:

- Socialists are taking control of the town, we need the state to step in a protect jobs. - The councillors are protecting illegal migrants. - There's a pedo ring operating from the state water board office. - Rival data centre operator is employing undocumented workers, shut them down! - Market rumours effect stock price of competitor, reduced fundraising round, cause it to cancel expansion.

There's so much training data to do this it seems inevitable.


I find it annoying that gmail has simply decided that my unlocked phone is more secure than my computer.


All I get is this: "Today's run is over."


"The published cost of attendance is a fiction almost no one pays."

"Net effect: a $175k household with a house and a 401(k) is judged "full pay," pays near-sticker from already-taxed income, and receives essentially nothing."

I never know how to resolve these two statements. In our case, my daughter happened to choose a good public university. Maybe that is what they mean.


it's easily resolvable. the first statement is a lie: MANY students pay the full, published cost of attendance.


What do either of those quoted statements have to do with public universities specifically?


At high-end private universities, "The published cost of attendance is a fiction almost no one pays."

Yet, most upper-middle-income students are considered "full-pay."

Therefore, most upper-middle-income students now attend public universities.

Or at least that is the conclusion I drew from the two statements I quoted.


I gave up with a dreams of returning to school when I realized in my early 20s, despite paying my own rent, bills, taxes, etc, the financial aid system considered me a dependent of my father still and lumped his income in with the calculations done to determine what I get/don’t get.


Link to paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-026-01820-z

It appears that if you go through the link in this Guardian article, you will get free access to the full paper:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/04/new-orleans-...


I seriously thought "AI washing" was going to be scrubbing all references to AI in public-facing documents.


I assumed it was laundering bad ideas, as in "it wasn't us being incompetent, we trusted the LLM!"


That'll depend on which way public sentiment goes


Probably because energy is cheap and abundant.


Zero.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: