nous sommes cailloux cherchant leur juste agencement

mais posés là de tout notre grave poids englués dans l'asphalte

en vaine attente du puissant torrent qui saurait nous rouler comme ballons dans l'herbe

nous rouler dans l'herbe

---

photo © Anemone Nemorosa @SensitiveSyl@beige.party

Tech Missteps & Lost Opportunities

There I was, shooting the breeze with my old mate Duncan over a Sunday braai, the smoke curling up into the African sky as we chewed the fat about life, tech, and everything in between. Duncan wasn’t much of a talker—quiet bloke, kept his cards close—but when he did open up, it was worth listening. Tragically, he took his own life during the COVID pandemic, just another statistic in that godawful mess. Hit me hard; he was a proper buddy, and I had no inkling of the demons he was wrestling with inside. Rest easy, boet.

Our chat that day veered into why Madge Networks, a company where we had both worked at back in the day, went tits up. I’d scribbled about it before, but hashing it out with Duncan brought it all back. My take? Madge had a solid solution in hand and went hunting for a problem to fit it, all while piling on one bad strategic call after another. Truth is, when a company craters like that, it’s never just one reason—it’s a bloody avalanche of them. You’ve got the obvious surface-level cock-ups, the mid-layer blunders propping those up, and then, if you dig deep enough, the root causes lurking at the bottom. No single villain in the piece, but a chorus of them singing in harmony toward disaster. I’ll lay out my two cents here, but I encourage anyone reading this to chip in—the full picture’s probably a group effort.

If you’re hunting for the gold standard in tech brain farts, look no further than Kodak. They bloody well invented the digital camera, the very thing that gutted their film empire, but they were too busy squeezing every last drop from their legacy cash cow to spot the digital tsunami barreling down. That wave also smashed Polaroid, another innovator caught flat-footed. Madge was like a precursor to that duo: they nailed Token Ring networking to perfection but should’ve pivoted hard into silicon for the Ethernet and WiFi juggernauts on the horizon. Instead, they dabbled in mergers and acquisitions without the street smarts that made Cisco kings of that game. Ironically, Cisco did float an offer to buy Madge, but it got knocked back. As we say out here on the Highveld, “Eish!” What a missed shot.

My own run-in with Madge kicked off in ‘93 or ‘94, installing their FDDI adapters into NetWare SFT III servers. They were the only ones that didn’t crash the whole setup—rock solid. From then on, I was a Madge fanboy through and through. As that guy from Remington shavers said, “I joined them.”

Any yarn about Madge has to circle back to their “Switching to ATM” fiasco. It sounded dead clever at the time, sophisticated, even, but it was clumsy as hell and completely missed the boat on the desktop market. Silicon for everyday connectivity was never heading ATM’s way. Back then, the big debate raged between Token Ring and Ethernet, and the verdict was Ethernet won out. But let’s be real: users ditched both for wireless radios—WiFi steamrolled the lot. Funnily enough, today’s Ethernet tech borrows more from Token Ring than you’d think, especially on the fibre side, where standards trace back to FDDI (remember that relic?). As an aside, one of Ethernet’s dumbest holdovers is its tiny frame size—pathetic, really. Token Ring was streets ahead in design on that front and plenty others. And get this: now we’ve got Ethernet rings per G.8032 specs. Talking rings, Token Ring’s source route bridging was a masterpiece compared to Ethernet’s limp transparent bridging. It let you build massive Layer 2 domains without broadcasts melting everything down; Ethernet had to lean on Layer 3 to catch up.

All that sweat poured into Token Ring MACs? In hindsight, Madge could’ve redirected it to ride the storage or wireless wave that was cresting. The real driver wasn’t video or those Jetsons-style fantasies pushing ATM—it was high-speed storage needs. ATM touted QoS as its killer feature, but Ethernet cracked that nut with higher-level protocols and shaping, all at a fraction of the cost thanks to years of price drops. These days, most priority multimedia traffic runs on traffic shaping—not as fancy as ATM’s QoS blueprint, but it gets the job done. Sometimes. I’m into SD-WAN and know it well. In the last few years those shaping protocols have improved with an example being fq-codel and CAKE.

Then there was that late-’90s idiocy: some ponytail in marketing decided to overhaul the corporate identity. Changing your look never boosts sales—it’s a fool’s errand that only lines the pockets of ad agencies. No company’s pulled it off without a hitch, yet they all queue up to try. Classic case? Coke’s New Coke debacle; they had the muscle to backpedal, but Madge? Not so much. Ditching those lightning bolts for brown cardboard boxes? Utter tripe. Went from unique and punchy to bland as dishwater.

And don’t get me started on the Lannet acquisition in 1995. When I chatted with folks there later, they swore blind they were an Ethernet outfit through and through. Madge, though, heard what they wanted and jammed a square peg into a round hole. Mismatch from the jump, and it showed—Lannet got spun off and sold to Lucent by ‘98.

By 1997, the writing was on the wall: Madge slashed 700 jobs—a third of the workforce—scrapped their ATM push entirely, and shuttered their San Jose HQ to retreat back to the UK. They admitted to overreaching without the resources to duke it out with the big dogs. The company limped on but finally folded in 2003, another victim of Ethernet’s relentless march. Hindsight’s 20/20, but Madge’s story’s a cautionary braai-side tale: innovate or die, but pick your battles wisely, or you’ll end up just another tech fossil in the dust.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

When its not a flock

Humans have long been captivated by birds, not just with their graceful flights and vibrant plumage, but also through the whimsical and often poetic collective nouns assigned to their groups. These terms of venery, originated in medieval England as part of hunting traditions, where knowing the proper name for a gathering of animals demonstrated one’s sophistication. Many trace back to the 15th century, appearing in works like The Book of Saint Albans, a collection of hunting lore attributed to Juliana Berners. Over time, these names have evolved, some drawing from observed behaviours, superstitions, or sheer linguistic creativity. These are the ones which are more than the generic flock of birds.

Let’s start with one of the most infamous: a murder of crows. This term likely stems from folklore associating crows with death and omens, as they were often seen scavenging battlefields or around carcasses. The word “murder” evokes their supposed propensity for mobbing and killing weak members of their own kind, though this behavior is more myth than fact. It first appeared in English literature around the 15th century. Closely related, an unkindness of ravens or a conspiracy of ravens draws from similar dark associations. Ravens, like crows, were linked to mischief and ill omens in medieval times; “unkindness” may refer to legends of ravens abandoning their young, while “conspiracy” hints at their intelligent, scheming nature. These terms were popularized in The Book of Saint Albans.

Moving to waterfowl, a gaggle of geese applies when they’re on land, evoking the noisy, chaotic sound they make— “gaggle” comes from Middle English for babbling or cackling. In flight, however, they become a skein of geese, referring to a thread or yarn, perhaps inspired by the V-shaped formation resembling a skein unwinding. These distinctions highlight how context-specific many collective nouns are, with roots in Old English observations of bird behavior. Similarly, a lamentation of swans captures the mournful trumpeting calls of these elegant birds, a term from the medieval era that poetically anthropomorphizes their sounds as sorrowful cries.

For raptors and predators, the names often evoke power or strategy. A parliament of owls is one of the most evocative, linking to ancient Greek mythology where owls symbolized wisdom (accompanying Athena, goddess of reason). The “parliament” suggests a wise assembly, though its modern popularity surged with C.S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia. It may have earlier roots in Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls.

A wake of vultures (when feeding) alludes to a funeral wake, given their role as scavengers circling death; this term emerged from observations of their feeding habits in the 19th century or earlier. A cast of falcons borrows from falconry, where “casting” means releasing birds to hunt, a practice documented in medieval hunting texts. Less common but striking are a brigade of martial eagles, perhaps inspired by the military connotation of “martial” (warlike) and their aggressive hunting in groups, though its exact origin is obscure and may be a modern invention based on behavior.

Shorebirds and waders have equally descriptive terms. A siege of herons refers to their patient, besieging stance while hunting fish, first noted in The Book of Saint Albans. A flamboyance of flamingos perfectly captures their vivid pink hues and showy displays, with “flamboyance” deriving from French words for flame or flair, likely coined as flamingos became more studied in zoos and wild habitats.

A dive of kingfishers evokes their plunging hunting technique, a more recent term based on direct observation rather than ancient lore. An irritation of hadedas are those creatures in our gardens here in South Africa who drive us nuts. An impi of lilac-breasted rollers who are venerated by the Zulus. A sneer of penguins as they look like butlers. A squadron of seagulls as they bomb in unison. A strafe of fish eagles as they fly in when hunting fish. A shag of turtle doves, just because. A tsotsi of cuckoos as they always stealing. A camouflage of Piet My Vrou’s as you can never find our see them. An ambush of Kieviets, as that is what they do! A state capture of Indian Mynahs because of the Guptas. A haunting of sacred ibises as that are flying ghosts. A dazzle of sunbirds as the catch the sun. A catwalk of Hoopoe, because they prance like models. A skinder of Secretary Birds, because that is what a pool of typists do.

Among smaller birds, personality shines through. A descent of woodpeckers describes their habit of spiraling down tree trunks, a name from noting their vertical movements. A charm of hummingbirds reflects their enchanting, jewel-like appearance and hovering flight, when these new world birds gained popularity in Europe. A scold of jays nods to their loud, scolding calls when alarmed, while a mischief of magpies highlights their thieving, playful reputation in folklore. A trembling of finches may refer to their fluttering wings in flight, and a quarrel of sparrows captures their noisy disputes over food or territory—these terms often stem from 16th-17th century naturalist writings.

More exotic or regional names include a plague of grackles, alluding to their large, invasive flocks that can overwhelm areas like a biblical plague, a term popularized in North American birdwatching circles. A confusion of guinea fowl describes their disorganized, panicky group behavior, originating from African introductions to Europe in the Renaissance. A congregation of weaver birds straightforwardly refers to their intricate woven nests forming communal colonies where they sing like members of a church. Rarer still are a peloton of hammerkops, borrowing from cycling jargon for a tight group (hammerkops look like cyclists with helmets), and a dive of kingfishers, as mentioned earlier.

These collective nouns remind us of the rich interplay between language, culture, and nature. While some have ancient roots in superstition and hunting, others are modern inventions inspired by behavior. My personal favorite has to be a flamboyance of flamingos—it’s just so vividly fitting for those leggy, pink spectacles strutting through shallow waters, bringing a touch of extravagance to the avian world. Whether you’re spotting a murder in the treetops or a gaggle on the pond, these names add a layer of delight to birdwatching.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

Awkward

It was one of those balmy Jozi evenings, just as the world was tentatively shaking off the grip of the COVID pandemic. I’d been invited to dinner at the home of an old school friend in Parktown, that venerable suburb where grand Herbert Baker-designed homes still stand like silent guardians of a bygone era, their red-tiled roofs and stone facades dotted along tree-lined streets. The invitation promised a low-key gathering—nothing fancy, just good food, wine, and conversation to reconnect after the isolation of lockdowns. Little did I know it would devolve into one of the most surreal and uncomfortable encounters of my adult life.

The guest list was small: my friend, his father (a warm, retired businessman with a penchant for marketing), and a neighbor named Rex, a retired South African judge who’d hung up his robes a few decades earlier. Rex was in his eighties, sharp-eyed and impeccably dressed in a crisp shirt and trousers, exuding the kind of authoritative presence that comes from years on the bench. At first, the evening unfolded pleasantly. We sat around a wooden dining table laden with homemade bobotie, fresh salads, and a robust bottle of local Pinotage. Conversation flowed easily—reminiscences about school days, the quirks of Parktown’s history, and the shared relief of emerging from pandemic restrictions. Masks were off, vaccines were in, and there was a palpable sense of normalcy returning.

But as the main course gave way to dessert, the tone shifted. Rex, perhaps emboldened by a second glass of wine, steered the discussion toward the pandemic itself. What began as mild skepticism quickly escalated into a full-throated rant about conspiracy theories. “It’s all Bill Gates’ doing,” he declared, his voice rising with conviction. “That man’s not content with his billions—he wants to control the world, Illuminati-style. The vaccines? Just a ploy to track us, make more money, and play God with humanity.” He went on, citing vague “sources” from fringe online groups and social media echo chambers that amplified such nonsense, painting Gates as some shadowy puppet master behind global events using microchips hidden in vaccines.

I listened politely at first, but as someone who’d built much of my career around technology, I couldn’t let it slide unchallenged. “With all due respect, Judge,” I interjected calmly, “I’ve spent my entire professional life using, supporting, and deploying products that originated from Bill Gates’ company. Microsoft has been a cornerstone for so many of us. Gates? He’s just a plain old nerd at heart—a brilliant one, sure, but his philanthropy, especially in medical causes, strikes me as genuine. He’s poured billions into fighting diseases like malaria and polio, not to control the world, but to make it a better place. It’s about giving back, not some sinister plot and there are no microchips floating in vaccines.”

The room fell silent for a beat. Rex’s face reddened, his judicial composure cracking like thin ice. Then, without warning, he leaned forward and barked, “Fuck off.” The words hung in the air, crude and jarring, utterly out of place in this refined setting. My friend froze, fork midway to his mouth; his father cleared his throat awkwardly, staring into his plate. I blinked, staring back at Rex, wondering if this was the onset of senility or just a flash of unchecked temper. Had the pandemic’s isolation frayed his edges, or was this the real man beneath the robe?

The rest of the evening limped along in strained politeness. Dessert was eaten in near silence, punctuated by forced small talk about the weather and local events—anything to avoid the elephant in the room. As I drove home later, winding through Parktown’s shadowy streets, I couldn’t shake the unease. How had this man, entrusted with presiding over courtrooms and dispensing justice, harbored such irrational beliefs? How could someone so unbalanced in temperament have wielded the gavel, deciding fates with the weight of law? It was a stark reminder that titles and authority don’t always equate to wisdom or restraint. In the end, that dinner wasn’t just awkward—it was a window into the fragility of reason in an age of misinformation.

But, hey, the world is full of those.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

Christmas

As December rolls in, like clockwork, I dust off my well-worn copy of Love Actually and settle in for the ritual viewing. It’s the quintessential Christmas movie, one that never grows old, with its heartfelt message of love, connection, and holiday magic distilled into pure Christmas essence. For me, Christmas isn’t just a holiday, it’s a tradition that seeps right into my bones, a visceral pull that feels as innate as breathing.

Being German by heritage, I suppose I’m a tree worshipper at heart, a bona fide tree hugger with roots that run deep. My earliest act of arboreal devotion was to a wild fig tree that sprawled outside the window of the dusty farmhouse where I spent my youth. I’d gaze at it for hours, imagining it as a guardian spirit. And it’s no exaggeration to say this reverence is in my blood; our family has over 500 years of documented history intertwined with Christianity, tracing back to the very door in Wittenberg where Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses, sparking the Reformation. That legacy pulses through me, even if my own beliefs has evolved.

Growing up in New Hanover, the local Lutheran church embodied the season’s splendor. Each year, a massive pine tree would be hauled inside and positioned proudly beside the altar, a towering symbol of evergreen hope. It wasn’t adorned with modern electric lights but with real candles, each one carefully ignited using a match affixed to a long stick—a ritual that filled the air with the warm flicker of flame and the faint scent of melting wax. The sight was mesmerizing, almost sacred. Afterward, the church’s brass band would strike up hymns, their notes resonating through the pews like a communal heartbeat. In the weeks leading up to Christmas, the church bazaar became a highlight, bustling with stalls selling handmade ornaments—delicate glass baubles, wooden carvings, and glittering stars that we’d hang on our own trees at home.

No Christmas memory is complete without visits to my grandmother Bertha, whose kitchen was a haven of holiday delights. She’d serve her traditional Butterkuchen, that buttery yeast cake dusted with sugar and almonds, alongside Zirupskuchen, a syrupy treat that melted on the tongue. Those flavors are the very taste of Christmas for me, evoking warmth and nostalgia in every bite. Even now, living in Johannesburg, I scour the shops each December in search of authentic Lebkuchen—those spiced gingerbread cookies that transport me straight back to my roots.

My parents would put on a Boney M cassette in the Mercedes Benz. We would listen endlessly to “By the Rivers of Babylon”. I’m still transported to the back seat of that car, wedged between my boet and sis every time I hear that song.

My sister shares this passion for the season and takes charge of our family gatherings, orchestrating a sumptuous dinner on Christmas Eve. We skip the fanfare of Christmas Day altogether, honoring the German custom of celebrating on the night before, the Heilige Nacht, or Holy Night. If possible, we seek out a church service where we can join in singing “Silent Night,” its melody wrapping around us like a familiar embrace. The tears come unbidden, rolling down my cheeks without shame, a release of all the accumulated joy and melancholy of the year.

At its core, Christmas for me is about giving—everyone deserves a present, not something extravagant, but a token that’s personal and meaningful, chosen with thought and care. And here’s my confession: for all the Christian heritage in my veins, Christmas isn’t truly religious to me. Sorry, Jesus—it’s something deeper, more primal, woven into my DNA. It’s a potent brew of ancestral echoes, a pause for reflection amid the whirl of life, blending the simple pleasures of tree hugging and Süßigkeiten—the sweets that make the season sparkle. I suppose some might brand me a heretic for saying so, but by choice, I’d leave my Christmas lights twinkling all year round. Their soft glow is too beautiful to confine to just one month. That’s me—unapologetically enchanted by a primitive festival’s enduring magic.

My favourite apostle is Thomas who would always go to first principles, and Christmas is not about the myths but being nice as the first principle.

Window shopping

As a young boy growing up on our family farm in the rolling hills of KwaZulu-Natal, the simple rhythms of rural life shaped my world as I learned the land’s secrets from my father’s calloused hands. But come December, a magical ritual broke the monotony—the annual pilgrimage to Pietermaritzburg for window shopping. This wasn’t just any outing; it was our prelude to Christmas, a shimmering promise of the holiday’s joy wrapped in the cool evening air. The town lay about 30 kilometers away, a journey that felt like crossing into another realm, where the dirt roads gave way to bustling streets alive with lights and laughter.

We’d pile into the Mercedes—my parents, siblings, and I—after supper, when the sun dipped low and the night sky began to twinkle like the decorations we’d soon behold. Pietermaritzburg, with its colonial charm and vibrant energy, was a far cry from our isolated homestead. The main streets pulsed with holiday cheer, shops aglow with festive displays that drew crowds like moths to a flame. But none captivated us more than Stuttafords and John Orrs, the grand dames of the retail scene. Their windows were masterpieces: elaborate tableaux of twinkling trees, mechanical Santas waving merrily, and piles of wrapped gifts that sparked endless “what if” dreams in my childish mind. We’d stroll from one to the next, pressing our noses against the glass, oohing and aahing as the displays unfolded like storybooks come to life. My mother would point out the elegant dresses, my father the sturdy toys, and we’d all imagine what treasures might find their way under our modest tree back home.

Those evenings were pure enchantment, but one particular Christmas Eve outing etched itself into family lore, recounted at every birthday and holiday gathering thereafter with equal parts horror and hilarity. I was not yet going to school, and was wide-eyed and overwhelmed by the urban spectacle. As we lingered before John Orrs’ magnificent window—a veritable winter wonderland of faux snow and animated reindeer—nature called with urgent insistence. Being a farm boy through and through, accustomed to relieving myself against a tree or in the open fields without a second thought, I saw no issue with the matter. So, right there on the bustling sidewalk, I sidled up to the window, dropped my shorts, and let loose a stream against the glass. To my innocent logic, it was as natural as breathing; the city lights reflected in the puddle at my feet like some impromptu holiday art installation.

The gasps from passersby were immediate, but it was a stern-faced lady nearby who broke the spell. She turned to my mortified mother, who was frozen in shock, and quipped dryly, “At least he shook it.” My parents whisked me away amid apologies and stifled laughter, the incident becoming an instant legend. Back on the farm, it was retold with embellishments—how the window nearly steamed up, or how I waved cheerfully to my reflection mid-act. Even now, decades later, as we gather around the table, my sister inevitably pipes up with, “Remember that time in Pietermaritzburg?” and the room erupts in chuckles. It was a lesson in the clash of worlds: the untamed freedom of rural life meeting the polished propriety of the city. In those windows, I didn’t just see holiday dreams; I glimpsed the boundaries of my own innocence, forever marked by a boy’s bold blunder.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

Redefining disabled

The world is obsessed with labels, and few words carry as much unintended weight as “disabled.” It’s a term that’s thrown around casually in medical forms, policy discussions, and everyday conversations, but what does it really mean? At its root, “disabled” suggests a fundamental lack, incapability, brokenness, or deficiency. It paints a picture of someone who is inherently less than whole, forcing them into a perpetual battle to prove their worth against the so-called “able-bodied” norm. But here’s the truth: no one is truly “disabled” in the way this word implies. We’re all navigating life’s challenges, and physical or cognitive differences don’t equate to incapacity. Instead, they often forge extraordinary resilience, creativity, and strength.

Think about it: every day, we all have to prove ourselves. The entrepreneur pitching their startup, the artist unveiling their work, the parent juggling chaos, none of us get a free pass. Why, then, do we burden some with a label that screams limitation from the start? It’s time to retire “disabled” and embrace a narrative of human potential. Let’s look at some real-life heroes who shatter this myth, proving that what society calls a “disability” is often just a different path to greatness.

Stephen Hawking | The Mind That Defied Gravity

Take Stephen Hawking, the brilliant physicist whose name is synonymous with black holes, the Big Bang, and the very fabric of the universe. Diagnosed with ALS as a young adult, Hawking gradually lost the use of his limbs and voice, relying on a wheelchair and a speech synthesizer. Yet, did this make him “disabled”? Far from it. He authored A Brief History of Time, a bestseller that made complex cosmology accessible to millions. He held the Lucasian Professorship at Cambridge, the same chair once occupied by Isaac Newton. Hawking’s intellect soared beyond physical constraints, challenging our understanding of time and space. He once quipped, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.” If that’s “disabled,” then sign me up for the club. Hawking wasn’t limited; he was liberated by a mind that refused to be confined.

Lord Nelson | Victory on the High Seas, One Arm at a Time

History is rife with examples, and few are as swashbuckling as Admiral Horatio Nelson. The British naval hero lost sight in one eye during the Siege of Calvi and had his right arm amputated after the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. Battle-scarred and physically altered, Nelson could have retired to a quiet life. Instead, he led the Royal Navy to decisive victories, most famously at the Battle of Trafalgar, where he crushed Napoleon’s fleet and secured Britain’s dominance at sea. Nelson’s famous signal, “England expects that every man will do his duty,” wasn’t uttered from a place of pity or concession, it was a rallying cry from a leader who embodied unyielding determination. His “disabilities” didn’t hinder him; they became part of his legend, proving that true capability lies in strategy, courage, and will.

Douglas Bader | Reaching for the Sky, Legs or No Legs

One story that hits particularly close to home for me is that of Douglas Bader, the RAF fighter pilot whose biography, Reach for the Sky, I’ve devoured multiple times. Bader lost both legs in a flying accident. Doctors said he’d never walk again, let alone fly. But Bader, with his trademark grit, fitted himself with prosthetic legs and badgered his way back into the cockpit. By World War II, he was commanding squadrons in the Battle of Britain, piloting Spitfires with acrobatic flair and racking up multiple aerial victories. Captured by the Germans after being shot down, he even attempted multiple escapes from POW camps, once famously trying to climb out using his artificial legs as leverage. Bader’s life screams defiance: “No matter what, you can achieve.” As a Spitfire ace, he wasn’t just participating; he was excelling in one of the most demanding arenas imaginable. Fuck yeah, indeed—that’s the spirit that turns obstacles into fuel.

These aren’t isolated cases. The list of such trailblazers is endless: Frida Kahlo, who channeled chronic pain into revolutionary art; Beethoven, composing symphonies while deaf; or modern icons like Paralympic athletes who redefine speed and strength. What unites them isn’t a shared “disability”, it’s an unwavering refusal to let circumstances define their narrative.

The Personal Lens | One Eye, Infinite Perspectives

On a more personal note, living with one eye changes things. Depth perception shifts, your brain rewires to adapt, and everyday tasks like driving or catching a ball require a bit more finesse. But at its core, it’s not a deficit, it’s a distinction. It makes you rare, forcing a unique way of seeing the world (pun intended). You notice details others miss, anticipate movements differently, and build resilience that “two-eyed” folks might never need. It’s a reminder that differences aren’t disabilities; they’re superpowers in disguise. Society’s labels try to box us in, but embracing our uniqueness unlocks potential we didn’t know we had.

Redefine

Disabled is a word that creates barriers where none need exist, fostering pity instead of empowerment. Instead, celebrate the human spirit’s adaptability. Whether you’re Hawking unraveling the cosmos, Nelson commanding fleets, or Bader soaring through dogfights, the message is clear: capability isn’t about perfect bodies—it’s about unbreakable minds and hearts.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

From the Mid-American Conference.

Today's game of choice finds the (3-5) Ball St. Cardinals football team traveling to Hadley, Massachusets to play the (4-4) UMass Minutemen. This game has a comfortable start time scheduled for 6:00 PM CT and I hope to be able to listen to the radio call of all 4 Quarters before heading to bed.

And the adventure continues.

Dromentemmers Beurs in het UHS

Wilt u meer weten over goed dus tam dromen. Heeft u last of kent u mensen die last hebben van wilde dromen kom dan naar de Dromentemmer Beurs in het Universeel Handelsgebouw van Smægmå.

Zelfs de wildste dromen doven ze daar vakkundig uit, verwijderen ze uit u slaap en zelfs dagdromen, op die manier leert u dromen zoals het hoort, veilig, geruisloos, gewaardeerd door de gemeenschap van goeden en hun goederen. Wilde dromen zorgen vaak voor vreselijke gebeurtenissen of een gestoorde rem slaap, u ogen worden veel te driftig in die krappe kassen.

Bij de beurs voor dromentemmers komen wel 400 vaklieden allen bezig in zeer uiteenlopende technieken om dromen terug aan banden te leggen, in de lucht te houden, zodat ze handelbaar blijven en niet langer ontsnappen aan alle droom controle mechanismen opgericht om juist dat te voorkomen. Niet iedere droom is geschikt voor het nachtleven, kan uitkomen, mag dat ook niet. Onze markt kooplieden weten alles over goede getemde dromen en ook over alle foute wilde, kennen het verschil, de regels rondom dromen in het wild. Wat je moet doen zodra een droom wild wordt, wanneer je moet ingrijpen en bij welke persoon aanwezig of werkzaam bij een van de bij de beurs aanwezige standjes je moet aankloppen om verergering ervan in te tomen.

Wilde dromen zijn een groot gevaar voor onze totaal cultuur en moeten ten eerste gemeden worden, ten tweede eenmaal toch daar gecontroleerd worden, en ten derde verwijderd uit ons systeem. Elke dromentemmer is in tenminste een van deze opties gespecialiseerd. De beurs is behalve nuttig ook gezellig, er zijn rustige artiesten voor op de achtergrond, eten dat door anderen voor je wordt klaar gemaakt, geserveerd zomaar gewoon voor je geld, er zijn leuke winkeltjes voor een groot scala aan apparaten allemaal heel onnatuurlijk ontstaan uit goedkeurenswaardige getemde dromen, diverse uitbaters van vooraf gedroomde tamme dromen die je zo kunt kopen en dan later thuis op het gepaste moment op bank of bed zonder enig gevaar met je hart gerust gaan liggen dromen. Deze beurs is geschikt gemaakt voor alle leeftijden (aanbevolen) een heerlijk uitje voor alle risico mijdende gezinnen, alle gezinnen dus.

De entree is 36 euro voor (jong) volwassenen, 10 voor kinderen van 6 tot 14, 7,99 voor kinderen tot 6, en gratis voor honderd jarigen, baby's en zeer rustige, normale huisdieren.

Let wel, voor entree moet u langs onze beveiliging door de dromenscanner mochten er restjes wilde dromen worden waargenomen kunnen wij u sommeren huiswaarts te keren of u kunt eventueel een paar uur verpozen in de quarantaine kelder tot al het wild gedroomde uit het lichaam is verdwenen en dan alsnog volledig gezond alles leren om dergelijk leed in de nabije toekomst te voorkomen.

Tot zo dan, bij de Dromentemmers Beurs in het UHS. Droom net, Droom tam!

11.4.2026

朝携清露行 暮落斜阳归 问霞君远渡 漠寞若浮舟

How to Solve Word Problems Without Getting Confused

By Andrew Collins, Founder of Calc Solver

Word problems confuse many students, and usually the math is not the hard part. The hard part is translating a story into numbers. Once you learn a reliable method for that translation, word problems become ordinary problems with a few extra sentences.

Read Twice Before Writing Anything

The most common mistake is rushing to calculate after one fast read. Read the problem twice. On the first read, get the story: who is involved, what is happening. On the second read, hunt for the math: quantities, relationships, and what is actually being asked. Two slow reads save far more time than one fast read followed by a wrong solution.

Underline the Numbers and the Question

Mark every number and its unit: 12 apples, 3 boxes, 4 dollars per box. Then mark the exact question — what single value must you find? Many students solve for the wrong thing because they never isolated the question. Writing the numbers and the question separately turns a paragraph into a clear starting point.

Translate Words Into Math

Math has a vocabulary. “Total” and “combined” usually mean add. “Difference” means subtract. “Each” and “per” usually mean multiply or divide. “Twice as many” means multiply by two. Learning these signal words turns translation from guessing into a routine. When a sentence confuses you, rewrite it in your own words first, then translate that simpler version.

Solve in Small Steps

Big problems become easy when split into small steps. If a problem has several stages, solve one stage at a time and label each result. Do not try to hold the whole chain in your head. Write each step down, even if it feels obvious. Written steps are easy to check; mental chains are easy to lose.

Check Against the Story

When you get an answer, read it back into the story. Does it make sense? If a problem asks for the number of students and your answer is 2.5, something went wrong — people do not come in fractions. If an answer should be smaller than the starting amount but yours is bigger, recheck your operation. This final reality check catches more errors than any other habit.

Practice With Steps

Word problems improve with practice, but only if you practice the method, not just the answers. A free step-by-step platform like calc solver shows the full working of a problem, so you can compare your translation and steps with a correct solution and see exactly where your reasoning diverged. Read twice, translate carefully, solve in steps, and check against the story. Follow that routine and word problems stop being confusing — they become the most satisfying problems to solve.

De Bond Tegen Efficiëntie Nieuwsbrief

4,5

Welkomstwoord

Hoi

Eindelijk is het ons tegen heug en meug gelukt om weer een nieuwsbrief samen te stellen en verzenden naar ongewenste berichten electronische postvakjes van al onze 110 miljoen leden en vele anderen wiens IP adressen en toebehoren toevallig of met opzet zin in ons bezit zijn gekomen. We hebben alle nieuwtjes waarschijnlijk verzonnen maar ze zijn daarom voor uwer brein niet minder nieuw, zo zit dat nou eenmaal.

Natuurlijk hebben we de afgelopen periode, tussen deze en de eerdere nieuwsbrief niet altijd stil gezeten, we hebben het nodige gedaan om ons het werk te beletten of juist niet, we deden aan afleiding, willekeurige promotie en deelden prijzen uit en we verklaarden voor gek. Dat is wat we doen om te doen alsof we niets zinvols doen met onze energie, de energie waarvan amper genoeg kan worden opgewekt om zo te werken zoals wij werken, omslachtig dus.

De Niet Efficiënte Loterij

De rede achter deze brief, dit belangrijke bericht voor u, ons alom gewaardeerde lid, u, de belangrijkste persoon voor ons voortbestaan, die soms wel soms niet contributie betaald, op tijd of veel te laat, het is ons om het even, te laat levert echter wel meer activiteit op. De bron van deze mail is de voorlopig eenmalig georganiseerde grote niet efficiënte loterij. Wij hebben bij deze mail het lot nummer bijgeschreven onder de kop. Elk lid, alle 110 miljoen leden, hebben zo'n nummer, een 1, 2, 3 of een 4. Straks trekken wij de loten voor onze vijf hoofdprijzen waarbij we na het trekken van de vier lootjes deze weer terug gooien in de grabbel zak en nog een keer een 1 2 3 of 4 trekken voor prijs vijf, zodat ook deze hoofdprijs in u handen valt.

De prijzen zijn

Prijs 1 – 10 miljoen Smægmåånse Døllār

Prijs 2 – Een dagtochtje met de kinderen of huisdieren voor vele miljoenen winnaars op 5 december naar de Kwakkelwinter Efteling (met eigen vervoer, transport kosten kunt u eventueel terugkrijgen, mits, zie bijlage 5 tot en met 15 voor alle regels waaraan u moet voldoen om gebruik te kunnen maken voor deze regeling)

Prijs 3 – Een make-up setje voor huiskatten van ons eigen merk OnEviviciëntie

Prijs 4 – 10000 Smægmåånse Døllār

Prijs 5 – Een lidmaatschap op ons Bond Tegen Efficiëntie Films en Serie kanaal, een dankzij onze sponsorbijdragen door werkloze losers gegraven kanaal gevuld met kringloop dvd's waarin u kunt vissen naar afgedankte series en films op schijf of vhs.

De kans is dus heel klein dat u niks wint, er zijn maar 2 mails verzonden met nummer 6 in de header en maar 1 met 4,5, alleen zij missen een geweldige hoofdprijs, ze gaan niet naar de efteling, maken hun poes of kater niet op, vissen wel zeker naast ons kanaal en krijgen geen centjes, dat is nou eenmaal hun lot, zoals bepaald door ons.

Ik denk dat u na het lezen van dit bericht wel heel gelukkig bent. U hebt iets goeds gewonnen en alleen maar omdat u bent vergeten u lidmaatschap niet te verlengen of omdat wij u aanvraag omdat te doen niet serieus hebben genomen. Sommige zaken zijn ook gewoon niet te doen, zeker nu het onze hackers steeds vaker lukt zichzelf te hacken en als gevolg daarvan zijn wij niet langer in staat onze mogelijk aanwezige administratie te ordenen op de meest onlogische wijze.

De administratie

Over administratie en orde gesproken wij hebben besloten leden niet langer te ordenen op hoogte van hun inkomen of op het aantal kinderen maar op het aantal letters in hun voornaam. Dit omzetproces heeft de maatschappij een poosje heel veel werkplaatsen opgeleverd, wij hebben daarom besloten iets dergelijks voorlopig niet weer te doen.

Bestuursveranderingen

Het bestuur is nog hetzelfde als bij de laatste nieuwsbrief, dit is trouwens voor het eerst sinds de oprichting van onze nieuwsbrief redactie, wel hebben we besloten dat de voorzitter nu de taken doet van de secretaris, de secretaris die van de penningmaestro en die weer van de voorzitter en de vice voorzitter maakt de wc schoon, zo houden we het voor iedereen spannend.

De agenda

Na veel soebatten hebben we eindelijk de nieuwe agenda ingevoerd. Een jaar bestaat vooralsnog uit vijf partities elk opgedeeld in 3 4 of 5 stukjes en elk van die stukjes in minsten 11 onderdelen, ieder onder bevat 56 cellen en tijdens zo'n vast jaar komt er elke dag wat in zo'n cel en gaat er wat uit.

De cel structuur aka de evenementen agenda

We hebben het volgende gedaan en het andere gaan we doen, zijn het van plan of hebben het overwogen, sommige staan zelfs al vast.

De bonte ochtend, partitie 4, stukje 3, onderdeel 16, cellen 23-45

Een heerlijke ochtend vol toneel, rollenspel, zang en dans en nog veel meer vertier allemaal georganiseerd in het medisch centrum van Smægmå buiten hun medeweten om, kom ook.

Eens ooit, documentaire projectie

De film avond waarin de nog te maken documentaire over de ongeschikte mensen van de afdeling complete infrastructuur bezig met lijden aan hun eigen werkzaamheden te zien zal zijn.

Bond Tegen Efficiëntie Kermissie, partitie 5, stukje 1, onderdeel 13, 14 en 16, alle cellen

Ook dit jaar trachten we onze kermissie te laten draaien, wentelen, stijgen, dalen, hobbelen, botsen, kermen, jengelen en tieren zodat iedereen ongeacht alles het ontzettend naar zijn zin heeft als ze het tenminste kunnen ontlopen.

Er was eends

De volgende drie evenementen zijn al geweest en kunnen daarom beter niet weer bezocht worden tenzij u graag teleurgesteld omloopt, kom er dan vooral op terug.

1 De vliegtuigtellingsdag boven het meest kwetsbare natuurreservaat van Smægmå.

2 De wedstrijd vijf dubbelparkeren voor pakketbezorgers bij en rondom ons hoofdkantoor

3 De bond tegen efficiëntie ledenvergadering rondom de huidige stand van zaken

Mededelingen

In de store is de nieuwe winter catalogus verdwenen, zou de persoon die dit schitterende drukwerk onder in zijn lade heeft liggen dit kunnen melden bij de afdeling winter catalogi zodat we de fans hiervan, de catalogus, niet de afdeling, het boekwerk daar bij u op kantoor kunnen inzien.

Het postvakje van lid 344246 zit te vol, is het mogelijk dat u het vakje groter maakt zodat het minder vol lijkt?

Er zit in de sector 56 een vertraging van 20 minuten tussen de verzending van de nieuwsbrief en de ontvangst, dit komt door nalatigheid van een persoon of meerdere.

Het weer veroorzaakt mogelijkerwijs hinder.

De contributie gaat voor sommige leden flink omhoog voor anderen niet.

Tot zover alle niet ter zake doende mededelingen.

U kunt niet reageren op de nieuwsbrief, wij zien het nut daarvan niet in omdat dat ons beter bevalt.

Ik dank u namens de hele Bond voor het bezitten van een malebox namens,

V

Penningmaestro Bond Tegen Efficiëntie

Today was a day I have been waiting a long time for.

I came to the realization that my life does have a stark contrast from my peers. I was carefully and delicately reminded that I carry quite a bit more baggage than the average person. For many reasons, many that are inadequate to bring up here, I represent both a large and small percentage of “real” people. I bring a much different background and diversity to my community. Every day, I have to be ready to go out there and defend, educate, and represent people like me. It is exhausting. Absolutely, horrifyingly exhausting.

While today represents many things, I am reminded of what hope, optimism, and empathy can bring to the table. It is hard to be in such a vulnerable position, but I will never back away from the challenges and benefits that I represent. Nothing is ever black and white, I don’t know when people will come to this realization. How could it be so difficult to understand that you can have limitations while protecting human rights? You can have protections while limiting public benefits. There are lots of things that can have equal and fair balances, why does everything have to be an extreme?

Today, I am refilled with a deep layer of hope and optimism that I fear I had lost. I am grateful for all the people who constantly defend democracy. I recognize that it was not my situation alone that resulted in this deep movement, but all the issues that humans care about – democracy, equal rights, environmental protections, healthy economy, and much more – that have resulted in this phenomenon.

I remember reading history books in high school and constantly wondering why I would ever care about any of it, or how it affected me. Now, more than ever, I understand the impact of policy, the magnitude of historic events, civil rights movements, and political balances.

The right words are out of reach as I truly process what is happening around me. It is one of those days that you know 5, 10, maybe 20 years from now will be written and played out into history books. I wish I had a more insightful reflection of this moment, however it is late… and I have to be up early tomorrow. At least, it is a new tomorrow, a more hopeful tomorrow, a tomorrow that promises new opportunities and a more equitable future.

Thank you for your message. I am currently out of office — but will return at the end of the month.

En anglais « writer’s block ».

J’ai entendu une remarque intéressante que je partage ici et maintenant pour ne plus l’oublier.

Cette difficulté d’écrire provient de la difficulté à accorder deux choses : ce que l’on veut réellement écrire et ce que l’on imagine que le lecteur veut lire.

En clair, ce « blocage » vient d’un manque d’honnêteté.

Rester à fidèle à soi-même. Peu importe le regard que les autres porteront sur ce que l’on a écrit.

Facile à dire. Pas facile à mettre en pratique.

J’arrive à écrire ici tous les jours en partie parce que je sais que personne ne me lit.

Le jours où ce sera le cas, les choses changeront probablement : quelle valeur j’apporte ? Quelle image je projette ?

Ce carnet n’a que pour seul intérêt le partage de l’expérience empirique que je fais de la vie. Mes sensations, mes émotions, ma manière de percevoir le monde.

Et peut-être qu’un jour cette expérience personnelle raisonnera chez quelqu’un.

Ce n’est pas un souhait aujourd’hui. La seule chose qui compte pour le moment, c’est mon envie égoïste d’écrire. Pour moi et moi seul. Et si un jour ces écrits sont lus.

Tant mieux... ou tant pis.

Democrats are taking the House and the Senate!!! Texas has flipped blue, and Abbott was told to get his hateful ass out! It's about damn time!

I am so happy I could cry. It doesn't mean things are going to be easy. It's still a hell of a fight, but it's a start. It's a start.

The horrific ads that have slammed into my phones and mail for so many weeks now are disgusting. The money poured in to create all of that ugly could have been used to actually help people.

It wasn't a tight win here. I am so, so very happy right now. Abbott and Paxton are bye, bye, bye! I could squeak!

© 2026 AnOublietteofThought. All rights reserved.

A courier working a suburban delivery round does something that no law, contract or app has ever asked her to think about. She walks up to a front door, puts a parcel down, takes a photograph for proof of delivery, and walks away. Then she does it again. Amazon, describing the job in its own words, says its drivers “typically have at least 150 stops and deliver 200 to 300 packages a day.” Each stop is a doorstep, and more and more doorsteps have a lens beside them. Until recently, that lens recorded her. Now, on some doors, it can learn her. It can measure her face, keep the measurement, recognise her the next time she comes, and offer the householder a box in which to type a name.

On 14 October 2026, CNET reported on three proposed class actions that put that change before the American courts: Sigwalt against Amazon, and Fennessy and Trevino against Google. All three allege that the familiar-face features in Ring and Nest video doorbells and cameras create biometric faceprints of people who never agreed to anything. The people they name are delivery workers, neighbours, visitors and passers-by. Their faces, the suits say, are captured, analysed and kept as profiles that the device's owner can label. The companies have already switched the features off in Illinois, where biometric consent law is strictest, and they say the data is protected and, in the framing CNET reported, stays on the device. The day before CNET's report, Apple had announced a range of cameras and a video doorbell for its own Home platform that can recognise familiar faces.

Three lawsuits against two companies, and a third company entering the market, mean the pattern is now set across the industry. That makes it possible to ask the larger questions directly. What happens to the old assumption that you can move along a street without being recorded under your name? Who should have to agree to being recognised at a front door: the person who bought the camera, or the person the camera learns? And what does a neighbourhood become when every entrance can put a name to everyone who comes up the path?

Three Lawsuits Built on One Absence

The three cases share one central fact, and it is an absence. None of the people suing ever bought the product.

Charles Sigwalt, a Virginia resident, filed the first complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on 1 June 2026. The case is Sigwalt v. Amazon.com, Inc., number 2:26-cv-01887, and it names Amazon and Ring LLC as defendants. It is assigned to Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. The complaint alleges that Ring's Familiar Faces feature scans the faces of guests and passers-by and that the resulting facial recognition data is “not stored locally” but held in Amazon's cloud.

Four weeks later, on 29 June, eight Virginia residents filed Fennessy v. Google LLC in the Northern District of California, case number 5:26-cv-06534. Their complaint says Nest's Familiar Face Detection scans “the face of every person who appears in the camera's field of view” and compares the result against a library of stored profiles. “The feature is activated by the camera's owner,” the complaint continues. “It is not activated by, and cannot be consented to by, the bystander whose face is being scanned.” The plaintiffs say they have never bought a Nest product, never opened a Google Home account and never agreed to any terms of service. They simply walk through neighbourhoods, visit friends and run errands past houses where Nest cameras are visibly installed.

Two days later, Barbara Trevino, a resident of Glendale, California, filed Trevino v. Google LLC, number 5:26-cv-06694. Her claims rest on California law, including intrusion upon seclusion and the state constitution's right to privacy, and court summaries describe her as someone who walks past homes with Nest cameras in her own neighbourhood. A third Google case, Miller v. Google, followed on 17 July. On 4 September 2026, Judge Edward J. Davila consolidated the three Google cases in San Jose as In re Nest Privacy Litigation, under the lead number 5:26-cv-06534. A consolidated amended complaint was due on 19 October, and Google's response is scheduled for 1 December 2026. Google is represented by Cooley LLP.

None of these allegations has been tested, no class has been certified and no court has found either company liable. Even so, the complaints do something useful before any ruling. They describe, in sworn pleadings, how a person experiences these systems from the wrong side of the lens. The Fennessy complaint is frank about the gap. “Plaintiffs cannot identify which devices scanned them or on which occasions with certainty,” it says, “because Google built the system to make that information virtually impossible for Plaintiffs to obtain.” The person being recognised cannot know where they were recognised. The only parties that can find out are the company and, in part, the household that owns the camera.

The Consent Instruction Addressed to the Wrong Person

The companies have not ignored consent. They have addressed it to the wrong person.

Google's own support page for Nest's familiar face detection tells camera owners: “Use familiar face detection in compliance with the law.” It goes on: “Depending on where you live, you might need to get consent to have your camera help identify people visiting your home.” The same page says the feature “is not available on Nest cameras used in Illinois,” describing the restriction as a precaution in response to state legislation. Ring's help page for Familiar Faces makes a similar move. It recommends that owners tell the people they save as Familiar Faces, notes that some laws require explicit consent from visitors before the feature is switched on, and lists the places where the feature is not offered: Illinois, Texas and Portland, Oregon in the United States, and the province of Quebec in Canada.

Read as a set of instructions, these pages ask a householder to do something that cannot be done. A homeowner can ask a sister or a regular babysitter to agree to being recognised. A homeowner cannot ask the courier who will arrive next Tuesday, who may never come again, who is on a timed route and who has no idea the camera is doing more than recording. The homeowner certainly cannot ask the stranger on the pavement who happens to cut across the drive. The duty to obtain consent has been handed to the one party in the arrangement with no way of carrying it out.

That mismatch was noticed before the lawsuits. In December 2025, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts released Amazon's response to his questions about Ring's face recognition. His office said the answers showed that people wanting their face data removed must approach each device owner individually, “forcing delivery drivers to potentially make separate deletion requests at hundreds or thousands of homes.” Markey's office described delivery drivers, including Amazon's own, as the group facing the greatest threat. The point is about structure as well as privacy. When consent and deletion are left to individual households, the person with the most exposure has the least ability to use either.

What 'On the Device' Does and Does Not Mean

The companies' main reassurance, as CNET summarised it, is that the facial data stays on the device. The companies' own documentation is less uniform than that slogan, and even where it holds, it answers a different question from the one the lawsuits ask.

Start with Ring. Its Familiar Faces help page says that profiles and facial recognition information are encrypted and “stored in the cloud, not on your Ring devices.” The page also says Familiar Faces is not compatible with Ring's end-to-end encryption option. Ring offers a library of up to 50 named profiles and removes unnamed profiles after 30 days without a recognition. The Sigwalt complaint relies on this architecture when it alleges that the data is held on Amazon's cloud rather than locally.

Google's position is more mixed. According to the Fennessy complaint, which quotes Google's documentation, earlier Nest models set up in the Nest app store familiar face data in Google's cloud. Newer models set up in the Google Home app store it in the device's internal memory, but “the cloud is used for clean-up.” The complaint also alleges that Google's documentation does not specify an automatic deletion period for unfamiliar faces. Google has not yet answered these specific allegations in court.

Apple's statement is the most carefully worded. Its 13 October announcement says that “Camera footage is securely processed locally on the customer's own Apple Home hub or in Private Cloud Compute,” and that “No one, not even Apple, can access the data.” Private Cloud Compute is Apple's server system for heavier tasks; introducing it in June 2024, Apple said that “no user data is retained in any form after the response is returned.” Apple's long-standing HomeKit face recognition is described in the same way. A February 2025 explainer from How-To Geek, consistent with Apple's own documentation, says the analysis takes place on the home hub rather than on Apple's servers.

These differences matter, and Apple's design is a real improvement on the question of what the company can see. A face template that never leaves a hub in someone's living room cannot be turned over in bulk from a central server. But keeping the data local answers only one question: who apart from the owner can reach it. It does not change the fact that the stranger's face was measured. It does not change the fact that a household now holds a record of when that stranger came and went. And it does not change the most important feature of all, which is that the owner can attach a name to that record. A named record kept in a neighbour's hallway is still a named record. “On device” describes where the data sits, not whether anyone agreed to its creation.

Apple Walks Into the Same Doorway

Apple's entry changes the debate because Apple sells privacy as part of the product. On 13 October 2026, the company introduced the Apple Home Collection, a set of accessories built with LG Electronics and Schneider Electric and managed through the Apple Home app. Apple said the range includes an LG Video Doorbell Wired starting at $249.95 in the United States, plus LG indoor and outdoor cameras and a floodlight camera. Apple's announcement says the cameras recognise “people, familiar faces, pets, vehicles, and packages.” The doorbell and cameras will be sold in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, with availability beginning in December.

The face recognition behind these products is not new. Apple's Home app has offered it for compatible HomeKit cameras and doorbells for years. Apple's iPhone user guide explains that the feature identifies people from faces in the owner's photo library or from recent visitors captured by the camera. Owners can tap an unidentified person listed under Recent, choose Add Name, and enter the person's name or their relationship to the household. The How-To Geek explainer gives a revealing example of a label an owner might use for a visitor the camera keeps seeing: “The Postman.”

That example captures the issue better than any legal brief. Apple's system is built to stop Apple, LG and Schneider from seeing what the camera sees, and it may well achieve that. But it is also built, quite deliberately, to let a household turn a recurring unknown face into a known one, even if the name is only “The Postman.” The person who delivers the post was never asked. The careful privacy engineering protects the owner's data from the company. It does nothing to protect the courier's face from the owner.

There is also a twist for British readers. Ring's Familiar Faces is offered only in the United States and Canada. Apple's doorbell will go on sale in the UK, where the law treats a camera that looks beyond its owner's boundary very differently.

A Round of 150 Doors

Go back to the courier. The doorbell debate is usually framed around a single visitor at a single door. Her working day is not a single visit. It is a sequence of 150 or more.

Each familiar-face library belongs to a single household. Ring's holds up to 50 named profiles, and Google's is shared across the cameras linked to a single home account. Nothing in the companies' public documentation says that these libraries are pooled into a national index of faces, and the lawsuits do not prove that they are. What the architecture does allow is this. A courier on a fixed round, passing many doors that have face recognition switched on, can end up recorded in many separate household libraries. In each one she may be named, labelled or simply stored as a repeat unknown face, under whatever description that household chose. The Fennessy complaint makes the repetition point about its own plaintiffs. Because they “repeatedly traverse the same routes,” it says, “the same devices would have captured and processed their faces on multiple occasions.” For a courier, repetition is not occasional. It is the job.

The research on delivery work explains why this matters. In October 2022, Data & Society published “At the Digital Doorstep,” a report by Aiha Nguyen and Eve Zelickson based on interviews with 20 delivery drivers and 20 doorbell camera owners across the United States. Most of the drivers worked for Amazon Flex, and most of the owners had Ring cameras. The authors concluded that doorbell cameras, though marketed as tools for home security, “are also near-constant tools of workplace surveillance for delivery workers.” They described householders taking on the role of a manager: using their cameras to monitor, instruct and sometimes discipline the people bringing their parcels. The report also found that drivers of colour spoke more reflectively and at greater length than white drivers about being watched during shifts, and about feeling conspicuous in predominantly white neighbourhoods. One line in the report sums up the courier's position: “The doorstep is both a workplace and a stranger's private property.”

Those findings came from the era of the recording camera. Recognition adds two things recording lacks: memory and a name. A clip of an unknown courier is a moment. A named profile that fires an alert each time she comes back is a running record of her working pattern, kept by a customer she has never met. She cannot see it, correct it or delete it, except by finding the house and asking. As Markey's office pointed out, a deletion right that must be exercised household by household is, for a delivery worker, a right that exists mostly on paper.

Even the law that does exist handles repetition oddly. Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, the statute both companies avoided by withdrawing, requires written consent before a private entity collects a biometric identifier. In February 2023, in Cothron v. White Castle, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a separate violation accrues with each unconsented scan. On 2 August 2024, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Senate Bill 2979, which provides that collecting “the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection” is a single violation. The change targeted runaway damages in workplace fingerprint cases, but its arithmetic speaks to the courier too. Under the strongest biometric law in the United States, being scanned at the same door a hundred times is now treated as one wrong. Yet each separate household that recognises her is a separate act of recognition, and no statute yet speaks to what it means to be recognised at a hundred different doors on a single round.

The Presumption of Passing Unremarked

The central question in this story concerns something the law has rarely needed to name: the presumption that ordinary movement goes unremarked.

People are seen in public all the time. What they have historically not been is identified, recorded and remembered by the buildings they pass. The legal scholars Woodrow Hartzog and Evan Selinger gave this condition a name in their 2015 article “Surveillance as Loss of Obscurity,” published in the Washington and Lee Law Review. Obscurity, they argued, is not secrecy. It is the practical difficulty, the transaction cost, of finding or understanding information about someone. A face in a crowd is visible but obscure, because joining it to a name takes effort that almost nobody bothers to make. Hartzog and Selinger proposed that the answer to surveillance often lies in deliberately putting friction back into the process. Familiar-face doorbells do the reverse. They reduce the cost of identification to the tap of a button labelled Add Name.

The urban writer Jane Jacobs, in The Death and Life of Great American Cities in 1961, argued that a safe street needs “eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street.” It is tempting to treat doorbell cameras as the digital version of those eyes. They are not. Jacobs's shopkeepers and residents watched and intervened, but they also forgot. A strange face was tolerated precisely because nobody filed it. A face-recognising doorbell is an eye that does not forget and will, if asked, write a name beside what it saw.

American constitutional law has begun to grapple with this idea, though in cases about government rather than neighbours. In Carpenter v. United States in 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Supreme Court that “A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere.” Six years earlier, in United States v. Jones, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in a concurring opinion that “GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person's public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” These rulings do not apply to private doorbells. The Fourth Amendment restrains the state, not the household next door. But they set out a principle that ordinary people grasp without reading any case law. Being visible at a moment is different from being compiled over time, and being compiled is what changes the relationship between a person and the places they pass through.

The Fennessy complaint tries to turn this intuition into a private-law claim. In its intrusion upon seclusion count, it argues that the plaintiffs' expectation of not being scanned is objectively reasonable because Google gives no notice and because “no social norm puts a passerby on notice that a doorbell is generating a mathematical map of his or her face.” That is the presumption of anonymity in movement, set out as a legal argument. Whether a court accepts it remains an open question.

Who Has to Say Yes

So whose consent should count? There are two candidates, and the products are designed around only one of them.

The owner's consent is real but limited. A household that switches on face recognition has agreed to the company's terms, and that agreement can cover the faces of its own members and of anyone who has actually agreed to be enrolled. It cannot cover the faces of strangers, because a person cannot consent on someone else's behalf to the measurement of that other person's body. The companies' support pages accept this logic when they tell owners that consent may be legally required. Their designs then leave the owner with no means of getting it.

European law answered the question some years ago, in a case involving an ordinary household camera. In December 2014, in Ryneš (Case C-212/13), the Court of Justice of the European Union considered a Czech homeowner whose camera also covered part of the public footpath. The court held that, to the extent such surveillance covers a public space, even partially, it is “directed outwards from the private setting of the person processing the data in that manner.” It therefore falls outside the exemption for purely personal or household activity. The court did not ban such cameras. It accepted that protecting one's property and family can be a legitimate interest. But it made the homeowner a data controller, with obligations to the people the camera captured.

British law has kept that principle. The Information Commissioner's Office tells householders that “If CCTV records beyond your property boundary, data protection law applies and there are rules you must follow.” The guidance expressly covers smart doorbells. It says owners must let people know they are recording, in most cases provide recordings to people who ask, delete footage regularly, and “stop recording a person if they object to being recorded and there's no legitimate reason to continue recording them.” Under the UK General Data Protection Regulation, biometric data processed “for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person” is special category data. Special category data can be processed only under narrow conditions, of which explicit consent is the obvious one for a householder. Apple's doorbell will go on sale in a country where the stranger's consent is not a courtesy but, in many circumstances, a legal requirement that the householder must meet. Apple's announcement does not explain how a UK owner is expected to meet it for a passing courier.

The English courts have already shown where the line falls. In Fairhurst v Woodard, decided in Oxford County Court in October 2021, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke found that a homeowner's use of his cameras, including a Ring doorbell, breached data protection law, and upheld his neighbour's harassment claim. The detail of the ruling is instructive. The judge accepted that the doorbell's video, which captured the neighbour only incidentally as she walked past, struck an acceptable balance. She found its audio capture, which reached much of the neighbour's property, disproportionate. The principle is proportionality. Incidental capture of a passer-by as part of protecting a home can be justified. A capability that reaches well beyond what that protection requires cannot.

Recognition of strangers falls on the wrong side of that line. Seeing who is at the door protects a home. A named, persistent record of the people who walk past protects nothing further, and costs people who have no say. A design that respected the consent of the person being recognised is easy to describe. Recognition would apply only to faces enrolled with the knowledge and agreement of the person enrolled. Faces that do not match would be discarded immediately rather than kept as unnamed profiles for a month. And owners would not be able to turn an unknown visitor's clip into a named profile without that visitor's agreement. That is no technical moonshot. In Illinois, the companies have simply withheld the feature instead.

The Street as a Directory

The deepest question in the CNET report concerns the future of the neighbourhood itself. What could a street become when every entrance can name everyone who approaches it?

The answer depends on whether the separate household libraries stay separate. Today they mostly do. But the industry has already shown it can link neighbourhood cameras when it wants to. Ring's Search Party feature, launched in 2025, connects outdoor Ring cameras in an area and uses AI to look for a specific lost dog. Reporting by 404 Media and others says it is switched on by default, so owners must opt out if they do not want their cameras to take part. Camera owners are alerted to possible matches and decide whether to share a clip. Ring's founder Jamie Siminoff has insisted, in comments reported by Newsweek, that the feature “is not designed to process human biometrics.” Yet in an internal email to staff in October 2025, obtained by 404 Media, Siminoff wrote: “You can now see a future where we are able to zero out crime in neighborhoods.” Asked by TechCrunch in March 2026 about features Ring was not currently building, he said: “It's very hard to say we're never going to do something in the future.”

No one has announced a feature that lets a neighbourhood search its doorbells for a named human face. It would be wrong to say one exists. But the parts are now sitting side by side. There are cameras at a great many entrances. Many households have face libraries in which strangers can be named. And there is a proven, opt-out mechanism for coordinating neighbourhood cameras in a search. Whether those parts are ever joined up will be decided by companies, by courts and by legislatures, not by the technology, which already makes it possible.

Even without a network, the social effects are visible. The Data & Society research shows that doorbell cameras already change how outsiders are treated in a neighbourhood, and that the burden falls unevenly. Add the ability to name, and the street starts to behave like a directory. Regulars are known, strangers are flagged, and the difference is recorded at every door. Such a street is not obviously safer, but it does tell people who belongs. The courier, the carer, the canvasser and the new neighbour are all unfamiliar faces until somebody decides to name them. Jacobs's street worked because it could absorb strangers without cataloguing them. A street of naming doorbells keeps a catalogue.

What the Courts Will Not Settle

The lawsuits will take years. The Nest cases are still at the pleadings stage, with Google's response not due until December. Sigwalt has barely begun, and both companies have real arguments to make. Arguments open to them include that the plaintiffs cannot show their faces were ever scanned, and that owners, not manufacturers, decide what the cameras do. Some may succeed. Class actions are a slow way to settle the basic conditions of public life.

But the questions the cases raise will not go away whatever the verdicts. A household device now creates a named record of the people who pass it. The companies have shown, by switching the feature off in Illinois, that they know how to withhold it. They have shown, by telling owners to seek consent, that they know whose consent is missing. And with Apple's launch this week, the industry has shown that the feature is becoming standard, sold as the privacy-respecting version of the same thing. On-device processing, end-to-end encryption and Private Cloud Compute all answer the question of who else can see the data. None of them answers the question the courier is in a position to ask, if anyone ever asked her: why is my face on file at a door I visited for 30 seconds?

The presumption of anonymity in ordinary movement was never written into law because it never needed to be. It was guaranteed by the effort it took to identify a stranger. That effort is disappearing, door by door, through settings that a homeowner can switch on in a minute. The decision about who has to consent to being recognised at a front door is being made right now, in product design and support pages, mostly by default. It should be made deliberately, by people who will one day be the stranger on someone else's path. That includes everyone.

---

References

1. CNET. Report on proposed class actions against Amazon and Google over familiar-face recognition in Ring and Nest video doorbells and Apple's entry into the market. 14 October 2026.
2. Sigwalt v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Ring LLC. Class Action Complaint, Case No. 2:26-cv-01887, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, filed 1 June 2026. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.363574/gov.uscourts.wawd.363574.1.0.pdf
3. CourtListener. Docket, “In re: Nest Privacy Litigation,” No. 5:26-cv-06534 (N.D. Cal.), including the Fennessy et al. v. Google LLC Class Action Complaint filed 29 June 2026 (ECF No. 1) and the order consolidating cases signed 4 September 2026; and docket, “Trevino v. Google LLC,” No. 5:26-cv-06694 (N.D. Cal.), including the complaint filed 1 July 2026. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73548337/in-re-nest-privacy-litigation/ Fennessy complaint also available at https://www.classaction.org/media/fennessy-et-al-v-google-llc-complaint.pdf
4. Google Nest Help. “Troubleshoot familiar face detection.” https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9281945?hl=en
5. Ring Help Center. “Familiar Faces.” https://ring.com/support/articles/z3yhg/familiar-faces
6. Office of Senator Edward J. Markey. Press release on Amazon's response regarding Ring facial recognition and delivery drivers. 10 December 2025. https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/just-in-time-for-holiday-deliveries-sen-markeys-probe-exposes-amazons-alarming-privacy-violations-with-facial-recognition-technology-in-ring-doorbell
7. Apple Newsroom. “Introducing Apple Home Collection, a new lineup of smart home accessories.” 13 October 2026. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/10/introducing-apple-home-collection-a-new-lineup-of-smart-home-accessories/
8. Apple Security Research. “Private Cloud Compute: A new frontier for AI privacy in the cloud.” 10 June 2024. https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/
9. Apple Support. “Use Face Recognition in Home on iPhone.” iPhone User Guide. https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/use-face-recognition-iph04af43727/ios
10. Davidson, Adam. “How to Use HomeKit Secure Video Face Recognition to Know Who's at Your Door.” How-To Geek, 16 February 2025. https://www.howtogeek.com/how-to-use-homekit-secure-video-face-recognition-to-know-whos-at-your-door/
11. Amazon. Delivery Service Partner driver diary, About Amazon. https://aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/amazon-delivery-service-partner-diary-photos
12. Nguyen, Aiha, and Eve Zelickson. “At the Digital Doorstep.” Data & Society, October 2022. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/AttheDigitalDoorstepFINAL.pdf
13. Illinois General Assembly. Public Act 103-0769 (Senate Bill 2979), amending the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, signed 2 August 2024. https://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0769.htm
14. Davis Wright Tremaine. “Illinois Revises Biometrics Law To Reduce the Prospect of 'Ruinous' Damage Awards.” August 2024, updated April 2026. https://dwt.com/blogs/privacy--security-law-blog/2024/08/illinois-bipa-biometrics-law-amended-for-damages
15. Hartzog, Woodrow, and Evan Selinger. “Surveillance as Loss of Obscurity.” Washington and Lee Law Review 72, no. 3 (2015): 1343. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol72/iss3/10
16. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.
17. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), decided 22 June 2018. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-402
18. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), Sotomayor, J., concurring. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259
19. Court of Justice of the European Union. František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů, Case C-212/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2428, judgment of 11 December 2014. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0212
20. Information Commissioner's Office. “Domestic CCTV systems.” https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/domestic-cctv-systems/
21. UK General Data Protection Regulation, Article 9, “Processing of special categories of personal data.” legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/9
22. Fairhurst v Woodard, Case No. G00MK161, Oxford County Court, judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke, 12 October 2021. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf
23. Koebler, Jason. “Leaked Email Suggests Ring Plans to Expand 'Search Party' Surveillance Beyond Dogs.” 404 Media, 18 February 2026. https://www.404media.co/leaked-email-suggests-ring-plans-to-expand-search-party-surveillance-beyond-dogs/
24. O'Connell, Liz. “Ring responds to concerns ICE could access new tracking feature.” Newsweek, 11 February 2026. https://www.newsweek.com/ring-responds-concerns-ice-could-access-new-tracking-feature-11496717
25. Loizos, Connie. Interview report on Ring founder Jamie Siminoff and privacy concerns. TechCrunch, 8 March 2026. https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/08/rings-jamie-siminoff-has-been-trying-to-calm-privacy-fears-since-the-super-bowl-but-his-answers-may-not-help/

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

Support What We Do