A court could absolutely order them to throw out a model. Perhaps you don't think it's likely to happen, but the law doesn't depend on what you think is likely. The court could also issue an injunction barring them from training future models on copyrighted material without permission. They also could grant damages.

Consider that Anthropic settled a similar case for $1.5 billion, which shows they thought they might lose a lot more if the case went to trial.

No it isn't. There are huge differences. The inputs are different, the process is different, and the outcome is different.

Why would you say something that's so obviously false?

The temperatures in your home town this month are weather, not climate. I suspect you really do understand the difference, and are just pretending not to.

That's kind of the point about climate change: the climate is changing. Infrastructure built for the old climate isn't sufficient anymore. 30 years ago no one had AC in Paris because you didn't need it. Today it's becoming hard to survive without it.

Europe is the fastest warming continent on Earth. That's why they're hitting this sooner than some other places. You'll see the same thing in Arizona soon enough. Think of blackouts during heat waves because there isn't enough power to run the air conditioners. Or people getting heat stroke even with AC, because it couldn't bring the temperature down enough. Either you'll spend a lot of money to update your infrastructure, or really bad things will happen.

I think you have that backward. A river flows. If you dump hot water into it, the river carries it away. You can rely on the river to spread out the heat and keep it from concentrating.

A lake doesn't flow. The heat gets concentrated in one place. You're relying on diffusion to spread it out, a much slower process.

If they need more power within two years, nuclear isn't going to help them. Since the goal is to "start construction" on two reactors by 2035, and have five more "planned or under development" by 2040, this is a very long term project. It will probably be 15 years before any power from it gets to the grid.

Solar can quite easily be built in under two years, but Canada isn't a great place for solar. A sensible approach would be to build solar farms further south and transmit the power north, except Canada probably wants to reduce their dependence on the US. Canada is also a great place for wind and geothermal. Those take longer to build than solar, but not as long as nuclear.

When someone has created a successful product, they usually think it's because they're smarter than other people, and they're usually wrong.

Facebook is the only really successful product Zuckerberg has ever created. It succeeded because he was in the right place at the right time, and that doesn't happen very often. All of Meta's other major products are things they bought instead of building themselves. His attempts to build other things from scratch have mostly failed.

He decided "the metaverse" was the future of computing, just as everyone else was embracing AI as the future of computing. If he weren't the founder and single largest shareholder, that would have gotten him fired.

Ironically, Quest is actually the most popular platform for VR gaming. If he'd been content just to create a gaming platform, it would be considered a success. Instead he blew $80 billion trying to turn it into the future of computing, making it a massive failure.

On the contrary, lots of companies have created electric aircraft. It's clear to everyone in the industry that they're going to be important in the future. A few have already moved into production, and many many more are at the prototype stage.

All the existing ones use conventional lithium ion batteries, and yes, low energy density is the main thing holding them back. Which is why this story is such a big deal: 60% higher energy density than the batteries in existing electric aircraft. Somehow you flipped that around in your mind and said "no one else" has used batteries with much higher energy density than what everyone else is using because... the energy density is too low??

Almost every neuroscientist in the world would disagree with you about that.

They sold you a piece of software, err, sorry, a license to use a piece of software, and then it turns out they didn't have the legal right to sell you that license because it conflicts with other contracts they signed? That doesn't justify their actions. It makes them even worse by adding fraud on top of everything else.

Aside from "you bought a license, not software" being obviously BS, it doesn't really matter. If you bought a license, then you own the license. They can't take it back. If they block you from exercising the rights you purchased, that's cause for a lawsuit.

Did they ever use the word "revolutionary" to describe their work? No, of course not. Did they claim to have invented evaporative desalination? No, of course not. It's literally in the very first sentence of their abstract: "Solar-thermal interfacial desalination is a sustainable solution to meet the ever-increasing global freshwater demand." I really wish you wouldn't make things up like that.

So what do they consider to be novel about their work? That's in the second sentence of the abstract: "However, when treating actual ocean water, salt accumulation on the evaporator surfaces and brine discharge are major issues limiting the performance and posing environmental concerns." And they made significant advances in addressing those problems.

I know, it's much more fun to attack someone by pretending they said something different from what they said.

Says someone who obviously has never read any science fiction ever.

NoScript. No one gets to run untrusted code on your computer unless you approve it first.

To be fair (in a very cynical sort of way), is this really any different from boxing? People are paid to hurt themselves while crowds of spectators cheer them on. It's disgusting, but we've been doing it for a long time.