Looks fake. Surprised that tomshardware wrote an article when all we have is a few seconds of marketing video.
Wait until these are in the hands of actual users.
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
67 points (86.8% liked)
Technology
7173 readers
45 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The video I saw had a disclaimer at the end saying that no device has been built yet.
Reminds me of this one, that made rounds some years ago and turned out to be fake as well.
the Photon Matrix has passed stringent certifications to ensure that it will not harm people, pets, and even birds that happen to fly across the device’s target range.
Who's certifying it?
The company that's selling it, probably.
After all, we let Monsanto-funded researchers declare that round-up is harmless, so this wouldn't be anything new...
Oh, I have seen this one, its great...
Does it distinguish mosquitos from other insects would be my second question. First one is safety, of course. I mean I'd be willing to walk in polarized glasses at home if necessary if this thing works.
We're in the midst of a mass exstinction that's crippling insect populations which are a vital part of the foodchain.
Anything that reduces the biomass of insects is probably a bad idea. A $1000 party toy that also reduces the biomass of insects is definitely a bad idea.
I was just reading to see how it's able to only target mosquitoes 😞. I'll pay the 1k if it could guarantee that, but just bug genocide is not ok with me.
While it uses a laser beam to strike down mosquitoes, it uses LiDAR, mmWave radar, and an AI vision module to detect targets between 2mm and 20 mm in size moving at or below 3.3 feet per second (1 meter per second).
I remember reading about research on this topic, the noise mosquitoes make is very distinctive, and systems for targeting them exclusively can work by identifying it and triangulating its origin, but it sounds like this product does not work that way. Not sure whether the lidar/AI vision method is able to discriminate as well.
I agree, but this is replacing a propane mosquito trap, so less CO2
These evil propane systems also attract many bugs from a wiiiide area, whereas the laser thing only kills bugs that happen to come by.
I still feel... very mixed about this thing. I'm not necessarily defending it, but if it actually works then it would be harm reduction.
So you just pray there are no mosquitos at eye level, or does everybody in the vicinity of this machine have to wear 'anti laser glasses'?
On the other hand, free vasectomy.
As the ladies say "Eyes are up here buddy".
I wonder if this could be scaled up to target protesters
There are already a bunch of scaled up ones that are designed to target military drones. Targeting humans with them is technically a war crime (well blinding people with lasers is a war crime, you are probably aloud to kill people with them because that doesn't create handicap people that burden the state, war crimes are defined by the billionaire class) so expect that to be widely done too.
Easily.
Does it work for flock cameras?
Seems insanely overengineered and potentially dangerous but cool I guess.
We've had regular mosquito zappers for decades now. Is this better somehow?
The previous system was a more defensive affair and thus required the mosquito to fly into the trap. This is an offensive system.
So it's like instead of deploying an anti-tank mine, you are instead utilizing a Javelin.
Plus Nazie's ruined tiki torches so now we gotta use lazers. Everyone likes lazers.
Especially if you mount them on sharks.
Mosquitoes aren't attracted to UV light, so any that get zapped are purely by luck.
The ones for mosquitos use a chemical attractant.
If this becomes popular we'll see natural selection at play soon enough
Hadn't realised those were a thing!
This is how mosquitoes evolve cloaking devices
Futuristic dolphin-exploding nuclear missile now available to buy
"Take my money!"
Yikes. Some people really should stay indoors. "Ohh no, the outside has insects, I literally can't!!"
Idk, the mosquitoes at my place this year are so plentiful and small (hard to hit) that multiple people have asked me where the fuck those are coming from.
If you live in the suburbs of a big city you don't know what mosquitoes are. I live next to the forest and this summer the forest is nearly impassable on foot or bicycle apparently. Which kinda sucks because I wanted to go foraging for mushrooms soon.
Was a thing back in 2007,research paid for by Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, then patent was shelved. I thought it would be an indefinitely shelving, but maybe they think they can make more money from it now? Back then it was conceived for aid in poor countries. Maybe climate change has made other countries hot enough for mosquitoes to be a problem in countries with money.
There's been millionaires in Florida and Brazil for decades
Yes, great market size.
YouTube recommended me Why I'm Skeptical of the Photon Matrix Indiegogo, which is also interesting. It's an appealing idea and no doubt will continue to get better as technology improves but, for now, I too am skeptical.
Check out the comments on the video if you want more context, a primary researcher the video references shows up to talk technical/regulatory limitations from when he worked in similar areas and the company behind the project jumps in too.
Also skeptical, this would be cool to have but I don't get how they could actually provide the performance they claim for the cost they charge.
I'll just stick with my Bug Assault salt gun. Much more fun when it takes your own skill to hit the bastards.
That works for you? It never managed to take down a single bug in one hit for us. It just sits in the corner collecting dust
Load it with a coarser salt. Its also really easy to beef up the firing spring.
It's also relatively easy to fit the barrel and hooper in existing airsoft guns, honestly I'm surprised no one makes a knockoff semi or full auto one
That would be awesome. Somebody should kickstarter that asap.
It has incredibly coarse salt in it. I mean I could try maldon, but I don’t want to waste all my maldon sea salt on bugs.
Would an ontos spring fit? It’s all I’ve got.
Bug screen on windows, you're welcome
But can it make you blind?
It's not a soup
I'm sure they'll still find some way to get out of the house and bother me when I'm outside.