I make no claims about what her lawyers are doing only that if she can afford to pay lawyers she can clearly afford to pay at least some restitution to those she was found guilty of defrauding.

That is why journal papers always have multiple reviewers. If all your reviewers are against your paper it is unlikely to be non-paper related and, it if is, it at least raises some doubt about exactly who the "a$$hole" is in that situation.

That's certainly true but unfortunately current AIs are often unbiased by reality which, when reviewing a science paper, is generally not a good thing. That's the problem with predictive text engines: all they do is predict what word looks "best" next in the sentence. Reviewing a science paper requires understanding the concepts, calculations and data in the paper, understanding current state of the field and using both of these to evaluate the ideas and results in the paper. No AI model can do that at the moment although, like a parrot, it can certainly sound very convincing at times.

If it is being charged for then it is not freely given in any sense of the word 'free' is it? I suspect that is their main point of contention. If the output of the AIs being trained were guaranteed to be all made freely available then I doubt anyone would be complaining.

When I provide free content I have no issue with it being disseminated by others provided that it is always done so freely. I do have issue with others trying to make money from it by charging others for access which is why I always use the CC-BY-NC-SA licence.

If AI coding is trained on stack overflow, that's a reason to be suspicious of any code that AI produces....

What you can do is require them to put the money into court-controlled escrow though and they can fund any appeals from what they have left. Allowing them to spend all their money on lawyers in a desperate attempt to reverse the verdict is unfair. A guilty verdict ought to mean something otherwise why bother at all?

I would argue that it does not matter: if you profited form a crime then repaying those you defrauded should always take priority over paying your won legal costs for an appeal whether those you defrauded be billionaires or improverished. Justice is supposed to be blind.

Clearly her financial resources were not so limited that she could not afford lawyers. Perhaps repaying those she defrauded should have a higher priority than finding money to pay lawyers for an appeal?

The US Constitution limits US government actions worldwide against everyone. /thread

No but it is arguably an act of attainder: finding them guilty of violating national security by passing a law instead of letting the courts decide. I'm no expert on the US consitution but in most democratic countries acts of attainder are generally not allowed.

Those statistics are based on the current operating fleet of aircraft which include a lot of Boeing aircraft built when the company prioritized safety (and hence long term profits) over short term gains. Plus, I do not think anyone believes that there is a general crisis in airline safety just a safety crisis in one company, Boeing, that has transitioned from being one of the most trusted names in aviation to one of the most dodgy in an incredibly short time.

That's entirely missing the problem though. The reason these things are all flops is not because the market is saturated it is because they are producing rubbish. While reducing the amount of rubbish can be argued to be an improvement it is still utter rubbish. If they want people to start watching that means focusing on entertaining stories with interesting characters.

A far better sign if they want to fix things would be firing their current writing staff and hiring people who can actually write good quality material. The staff they have at the moment write like they are 12 year olds producing fan fiction.

It might be low quality but if, for example, you are blind or partially sighted I suspect you'll might really appreciate having access to books you otherwise might not. It would be at least interesting to hear their take on it.

Yes well Harrogate Town Council was never really impressive when I was growing up there and North Yorkshire Country Council was no different so this does not surprise me at all. In Harrogate though there were a lot of street names with apostrophes in the neighbourhood I grew up in, all named after saints: St Helen's Road, St Leonards's Road, St Winifred's etc. probably due to the nearby convent although I always thought the touwn council was responsible for street signs, not the country council.

If their computer security is this poor though XKCD has a great exploit for anyone looking to name their kids - and the country council is generally responsible for the schools (or at least used to be).

What helps even more are strict drunk driving laws and advertising that makes drunk driving both socially unacceptable and removes licenses/impounds cars. In fact in the UK you can permanently lose your license and have to requalify again after the exclusion period which is no joke with the UK's driving test. As a result the UK has about half the alcohol accident rate (16%) of the US and Canada (31%) and Germany's rate (9%) is almost half that of the UK's.

As long as the US and Canada treat drunk driving as a minor offence unless someone is actually hurt/killed people will keep on drunk driving until that happens so the law does little to nothing to prevent it.

My point is that it is not a news story, it's an opinion piece. News stories generally inform the reader of the news in as neutral and balanced way as possible. This was a badly written opinion piece. Going to the sources is the job of the journalist. The fact that even you are suggesting that this is needed means that clearly the so-called journalist did not do their job.