Noah Snavely

And the Pima Air and Space Museum is also great: maps.app.goo.gl/BdPS9H1Xn6w1...

I also liked Karichimaka which is a bit closer:

maps.app.goo.gl/b9wLhe7vhAAU...

I really liked Amelia's restaurant when I last in Tucson, though it's a little far from the conference

maps.app.goo.gl/3kGxza526ndg...

I'm very curious about this place and will try to check it out next time I'm around: maps.app.goo.gl/cwNcxgPxyzjx...

Hiking, Mexican food, stargazing are all good activities. The Marriott Starr Pass is close to Saguaro National Park West, and lots of other great hiking. It's also close to the Desert Museum, which is really nice.

ZipMap: Linear-Time Stateful 3D Reconstruction with Test-Time Training

@haian-jin.bsky.social, Rundi Wu, Tianyuan Zhang, Ruiqi Gao, @jonbarron.bsky.social, @snavely.bsky.social, @holynski.bsky.social

tl;dr: another(?) TTT+VGGT

arxiv.org/abs/2603.04385

Attention-grabbing idea for an academic paper:

Somehow work your personal phone number into the title, like those old LifeLock ads featuring the CEO's social security number.

I bet this kind of stunt would garner attention, but I haven't figured how to work it naturally into a CVPR paper.

I thought Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie was a fantastic comedy film! I went in knowing nothing about the premise and had a great time. I have no idea how they filmed parts of it, especially on a budget of just $2M. A nice time in the theater.

If you are attending @wacvconference.bsky.social in Tucson next month and stopping in Phoenix, I highly recommend checking out Organ Stop Pizza -- the most fun restaurant I've ever been to. Home of the "world's largest Wurlitzer theater organ" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_S...

Nice lighting!

That said, I don't actually mind "the supplemental". It sounds okay to my ear!

I suppose "supplement" would be okay, and shorter. Or "appendix" might sound nicer.

Page 2

I found this old bassoon sheet music in storage, and tried to have Gemini scan it to PDF. I think it is getting better with music? But still goes off the rails. (ChatGPT does even worse.)

But being metrics-driven seems a bit dissonant with the goals of the community, like, I don't think we should feel like "our business is generating reviews". (This is separate from the question of whether IEEE should be the arbiter of these things.)

Very interesting! That accords with the vibe I've gotten from recent conference town halls, where reviewing seems very numbers driven (success = 100% on time reviews), as if we were in a corporate boardroom celebrating our balance sheet. That's not a knock on organizers, who have a difficult job.

(Maybe more concretely, I'll propose that it shouldn't be seen as the end of the world and some shocking disaster if some papers have two reviews.)

Though you are totally right that according to this model, the break-even point could be much higher than 3 (though you also have to factor in the increased work, somehow).

(I also feel like we're way past the point where peer review is really proceeding in a super-scientific way at the big conferences, and we should accept that and try to take things a bit less seriously, though without throwing up our hands altogether.)

(My secret motivation is just that I feel I'm always reading invectives against reviewers, and the consequences against negligence are ratcheting up, e.g., desk rejection. I want to send a big love note to reviewers as an AC this year and am looking for ways to decrease pressure.)

And I don't know if the decisions are necessarily better as a result of the insistence on 3 reviews per paper.

Good point! But there's also a cost to the community as a function of the number of reviews. More work, more angst. I sense a lot of anger against reviewers, and a lot of pressure (including time pressure), which may just lead to LLM use.

Interesting! I was imagining that something like this could be the case: as the total number of reviews goes up, the average quality goes down. If so, it's not clear to me that 3 is the sweet spot.

I was thinking it may be a neat experiment to require fewer reviews and see if something breaks.

The CVPR process seems driven by the goal of extracting 3 reviews for each paper, a goal that seems to lead to a lot of angst. Is there a reason why 3 is a magic number? Why not two, or even one (assuming the quality is high)?

If you are looking for a new podcast to get into, I recommend Topics with Michael Ian Black and Michael Showalter. Even though they are comedians, they aren't afraid to dive into some weighty topics! www.earwolf.com/show_archive...

Thank you!

Thank you!

Any of the above. Are there computer vision papers that have beautiful figures whose intention is to explain how a system works? (E.g., network architecture, system diagram, etc). High-level organization, as well as low-level style (should I use rounded boxes? What colors should I use?) included

What are some examples of computer vision papers that have attractive system diagrams?

Over the past year, my lab has been working on fleshing out theory + applications of the Platonic Representation Hypothesis.

Today I want to share two new works on this topic:

Eliciting higher alignment: arxiv.org/abs/2510.02425
Unpaired learning of unified reps: arxiv.org/abs/2510.08492

1/9