In medical images, you don't record first and then compress later. Instead, you make sparse measurements and then reconstruct. Why? Because people move, so getting more frames/sec is a thing; you don't want people to stay for too long in the machine; and (ideally) with the same setup, you can focus on a smaller area and get a higher resolution than standard measurements too.
You are talking about compressed sensing which is not lossy compression (compressed sensing can be lossless unless you're dealing with noisy measurements).
But say you're doing noisy measurements, and you are under-measuring like you say, and you have to fabricate non-random non-homogenous reconstruction noise. In that case it would be a very good idea to produce, as they do for lossy compression, both the standard overall bit rate vs. PSNR characterization against alternate direct (non-sparse) measurement ground truths (that have to exist, or else the reconstruction method should be called into question), and the bit rate for each particular sparse measurement. So this way people can see how reliable the reconstruction is. Ideally the image should be labeled at the pixel level with reconstruction probabilities, or presented in other ways to demonstrate the ratio of measured vs. fabricated information, like 95% confidence-interval extremal reconstructions or something.
It's not clear that community is doing this level of due diligence, so then the voices here are right: it's not a good idea to use.
I was about to recommend the same book. Also, recommend Klosterman's interview with Tyler Cowen [1] if you want to get a sense of what the book feels like.
It randomly deletes all of the comments in the file. I had this happen at least four times. Preview overwrote the file, deleted all of my comments, which were at least a couple of hours of work.
> In theory, they should have failed the class or been expelled, but the professor didn't want such a high rate of her class failing and just gave them a zero for the one assignment.
It's likely that this decision was not up to the professor. Unless you have massive proof, deans (and the administration in general) hesitate against taking serious action. I'm talking from my own experiences.
The TAs caught it because the students copied the text exactly, so there was no issue of evidence. The administration didn't get a say because she never reported it to them.
In retrospect I could have made a stink and gone to the dean, but Freshmen me wasn't willing to do that sort of thing.
I have no idea what happened in this case, but that doesn't follow - MIT is one of those schools that routinely promote to associate without necessarily giving tenure [0].
