If I was selling anything of any reasonable value, I'd want to make sure there was a clear and definite agreement precisely to prevent this sort of lawsuit from happening.

I'd have responded with "I need more than a thumbs up. Can you send an email confirming that you agree to the terms", or at least asked for a text providing clear unambiguous confirmation.

Streaming absolutely bundles. You just buy each bundle from a different provider.

A la carte wouldn't make things cheaper. There's typically one channel that people are willing to get the bundle for, and the others are added as a value add. The cable company pays more for certain channels, and you're paying for the one you want in a bundle.

It's left leaning - certainly relative to the current Overton Window in the UK. You're a lot more likely to see an article advocating a left wing viewpoint than something that would be typical in the Telegraph.

Don't they do several orders at once? A single family could easily be around $200

"Electric VTOL air taxi" seems like marketing buzz rather than a description.

I guess this is really just an electric quadcopter. And that's fine from a technology point of view, but the speed and range seem limited so I can't imagine people using this to travel more than 30 miles/50km or so, so wondering who they want to sell this to.

UK rail prices are high but we seem to be looking at about twice the price of the equivalent German rail journey rather than 5 times, and not substantially slower.

Sure, the London-centric nature of the rail system is a problem, especially because changing involves faffing about on the tube, but on the whole, the UK's rail service is pretty average for Europe.

It's not about blaming the model. It's about illustrating that the model could well be argued to contain copyrighted information.

Instead of "Mickey Mouse", I create "Cartoon Mouse" or public domain characters like "Snow White" or "Beauty and the Beast". The AI creates something superficially similar to Disney's versions. If a human artist created it there would be no question, but the AI artist created it.

Disney comes and insists that it uses their IP and demonstrates that the model does indeed contain a representation of their characters. Can you swear, under oath, that no part of the image is derived from a Disney property?

It doesn't even require a lot of hard work. I tried "Starry Night by Vincent Van Goph" in nightCafe. Ended up with something very similar to the famous painting. Same swirls and everything.

Not an issue in this case because it's out of copyright. But if you try "Mickey Mouse" and get a weird picture of a mutant mickey, it's pretty clear that the training data contains a decent amount of Disney images. I doubt Disney are being that free with their licencing.

For a publication like Nature, I'd say this is a pretty obvious decision. This is very much about facts and the truth. Illustrating with some algorithm's interpretation doesn't make sense.

In the UK, I've not used a cheque this side of the year 2000, and I think a lot of adults have never owned a chequebook. Nevertheless, there are still millions of cheques written every year.

No idea who these people are though. That works out to an average of 3 a year per person. There must be a small number of people writing dozens or hundreds of cheques per year.

The idea seems to be to start of with an object oriented view of programming rather than bolting it on to a procedural approach.

I have no idea if this is a good idea, or if Java is a good way of doing this.

I think part of it is how easy it is.

Nobody cared about copyright when copying involved scribes painstakingly duplicating manuscripts. When printing presses became a thing, it was seen as important that the original creators received some compensation.

Is an AI generated piece not infringing though? It's just an algorithmic modification of existing data, after all. Maybe that's all the brain's doing as well but copyright law treats our brains as something special.

Sure there are a few games that are pretty enjoyable, and well worth splashing out on if you already have the headset, but that's not enough to justify the system.

People will buy an XBox Series S/X or PS5 almost on the strength of one or two games, and the certainty that there are going to be more on the way.

The CTO of Nvidia said this. Nvidia itself is an abstract entity that exists in order to facilitate operating a business, and doesn't have opinions.

As for what this person said, who cares? He's not a financial expert. His opinion is as valid as yours or mine.

No you can't because that's not how these things are funded. There's not a big pot of money. They're funded by government debt with the expectation of positive economic growth as a result.