> The picture alone says a thousand words. Play a game by peeing on the right spot in an urinal...
That's how you end up with a pee sea instead of a PC.
You have a person for X time and they can't use their phone.
I'd imagine the killer app part is easy to clean and doesn't look like a camera.
Have you not been in a men's room in the past decade?
Ah, I can see prostate treatment ads booming...
I feel like it would be a bad idea.
Shopping centres can have tracking based on WiFi. Track how much fluids are bought and where.
People leak data everywhere.
Cameras are rightly forbidden *inside* restrooms, but there are often security cameras in corridors leading to them. Run facial recognition off of those, store the data for a *leeetle* while, consolidate/centralize all the data back to one warehouse, and... you just built a scarily accurate biometric tracking system that can sell... [gets sad about implications and stops typing]
In CS at least, we pay grad student research assistants close to nothing relative to their worth. And then we work them to the bone. In exchange, students like these ones are allowed to do whatever they want in their free time in betweeen working on actually funded projects.
If you can find an alternative model that allows me to hire kids who have 200k offers at 30k-40k and get 50+ hours of work out of them, please let me know.
Even if these kids work on these projects during the 9-5 day — and I kind of doubt it, these are all probably “fucking around in the lab at 1030pm” projects — we’re still getting a killing by calling them students instead of SWEs.
I’ve advised exactly zero students who didn’t have multiple offers in the 200s when they started their phd, and never paid more than 45k. They could spend like most of their time on BS and I’d still be getting an amazing deal.
Kids using their free time to do stupid/fun projects in between working for the taxpayers at a REALLY FUCKING STEEP discount is not an example of government waste. And if you start getting greedy by treating phd students like civil servants, well, better also be willing to pay six figures and a pension. Spoiler: you’re not going to save money.
While you mention price tag, the student gets only a small part of all the funding. Most of the money goes to the institution, not to mention the advisor's summer salary.
Stop with the professional attacks against researchers until you at least take the time to read their CVs. What you we doing here is attacking peoples professional reputation. And you’re doing it without knowing anything about them. Stop.
At least half the money goes to the student in stipend+core benefits, and another third covers fringe benefits and overhead - lights, bathrooms, offices, security, data centers, travel, … It’s pretty common for the total cost of an employee to be 1.5x+ their salary.
Sometimes grants fund faculty summer salaries, but I kind of doubt those faculty spent any time on these specific projects.
The reality is that the incentive system is wrong. Impactful, long-term research is super hard to achieve like this.
Just look at many authors' publication lists that look like paper mills. Quantity over quality. Irreproducible results, bad study design, too many hidden variables, unrepresentative subjects. Unrealistic and oversimplistic assumptions. I've even served as subject of studies published in top venues, and I can tell that the study was a joke.
It varies by the area, but this is present everywhere. Just one example: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo....
Aside from that, IDK. I'm sorry you had some sort of negative experience, but I don't have time to engage with "all of academia is a scam" levels of crank. That sort of thing very much goes into my "p=np" inbox.
Of course, the government has a tax monopoly. But wait, several private companies look like they do too! From my perspective there are more viable countries/governments to choose from than mobile or desktop OSes or online retailers.
Criticism of government waste shouldn't be taken as an argument against government, like some opportunists do, but as necessary accountability. In this case, the funding for this garbage research (and all paper mills, while we are at it, which are a majority of academia these days) should be reinvested in useful areas like climate change, fundamental sciences (such as physics and chemistry) and technology transfer from science to industry.