nerd

15 Aug 2026

Slashdot

Robots That Walk and Talk Are Coming To Car Factories

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: At a BMW factory in South Carolina, a human-shaped robot with a screen for a face recently stepped from a charging station toward a stack of green plastic boxes. It grasped an auto part from one of the boxes, pivoted, placed the part in a trolley, then pulled the trolley across the floor. The robot's slow, stiff movements suggested a worker with a bad hangover rather than a technological revolution. "They're still slower than humans," Ulrich Wieland, a BMW vice president in charge of logistics at the factory, in Spartanburg, told reporters invited to see the robot in June. But, he added, "they're advancing fast." Automakers have used robots for decades, but they are usually powerful, one-armed machines that are fixed in place and perform repetitive tasks like welding body frames or applying adhesives to door panels. Now, most major automakers are betting that robots designed to resemble human beings, known as humanoids, will usher in a new wave of automation and efficiency. Equipped with artificial intelligence, they are expected to move around and do tasks now done by humans without any modifications to factories or heavy equipment. Unlike most of the robots now in use, humanoids would respond to voice commands and theoretically solve problems and react to unforeseen events. They would never take a lunch break, join a union or require health insurance. To optimists, robots could rescue U.S. manufacturing by increasing productivity, solving shortages of skilled workers and giving Western carmakers a fighting chance at competing with Chinese rivals that enjoy lower costs. Boring but important jobs like sorting parts would be done by robots, freeing humans for more interesting and specialized work.

Hacker News

AI Driven Testing

Comments

15 Aug 2026 2:42am GMT

Magnitude 7.7 Earthquake – 68 km NNW of Ende, Indonesia

Comments

15 Aug 2026 1:14am GMT

The Ploopy A+ Trackball Is Here

Comments

15 Aug 2026 12:55am GMT

14 Aug 2026

Slashdot

Ex-Cambridge Professor At Center of Plagiarism Row Found Dead

Former Cambridge professor Jason Arday, who resigned last week amid allegations of plagiarism and questions about his academic record, has been found dead at age 41 in London. The BBC reports: Jason Arday was found "unresponsive" at an address in Battersea, south London, on Friday afternoon, emergency services said. Metropolitan Police officers were called by the London Ambulance Service. A 41-year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene and his next of kin have been informed, the force said. Arday resigned as a Cambridge professor of sociology of education last week after allegations of plagiarism and questions about some of his achievements. He had denied the claims. In a statement, the Met Police said: "At this time his death is being treated as unexpected, but is not believed to be suspicious." The 41-year-old academic had denied any plagiarism - but admitted errors in his work - and last week said the recent furore had led to "an unrelenting level of public scrutiny and personal attack." The row first erupted after another academic -- self-defined "race realist" Nathan Cofnas, who was sacked from his Cambridge role in 2024 -- said he found numerous instances of plagiarism in Prof Arday's work and questioned some of his stated achievements. [...] Announcing his resignation last week, Arday said the "personal cost" of the scrutiny had become "too great." He said: "While criticism is an inevitable part of academic life, what I have experienced has gone far beyond scholarly disagreement. "The relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary have taken a profound toll on me and on those I love." He stressed that his resignation should not "be mistaken for an acceptance of the narratives that have surrounded me."

Flock Announces Changes Amid Backlash Over Its License Plate Reader Network

Flock Safety is tightening controls on its nationwide license plate reader network after mounting backlash over privacy and documented police misuse. By January 1, law enforcement customers will be required to use automated auditing, tie searches to specific case numbers, and accept a shorter seven-day default retention period. Critics, including the ACLU, argue the changes still leave too much surveillance power in police hands. The Associated Press reports: In an interview, Flock CEO Garrett Langley said many of the product changes will make what were once optional guardrails mandatory for its users to implement by Jan. 1. Among them: All law enforcement customers will have to implement an audit tool that's intended to flag abnormal search behavior. When the system detects abnormal behavior, the user would be locked out pending an internal review, the company said in a description of the changes provided ahead of Thursday's announcement. Flock, which says its customers own the data that the cameras record, is also shortening the standard data retention window from 30 days to seven. It said it will allow data to be preserved for longer when it is evidence tied to a case number. Law enforcement users will now also be required to enter a code from their records management system tying each search to a specific case before it is run, something Langley said civil liberties advocates have long been calling for. Overrides for emergencies would be automatically flagged for review, the company said. Customers will also be allowed to decide which offense types -- such as homicide or arson -- outside agencies can search their data for, which would allow a customer to block outside searches related to immigration enforcement, the company said. Langley said that change will give individual cities and departments control to use the system in a manner "consistent with community values." Critics say Flock's changes don't address the core problem: police can still decide for themselves when and whom to search without judicial oversight. The ACLU called the shorter data-retention period "a step in the right direction," but dismissed the other safeguards as "retreads" of inadequate protections, while Institute for Justice attorney Robert Frommer called the reforms "window dressing" from a company in "panic mode." He argued that searches should instead be approved "by judges with real warrants."