You would have to build millions upon millions of olympic-sized swimming pools (vats) combined with millions upon millions of acres of supporting infrastructure....
...What.
Do you know what the capacity of an Olympic-sized swimming pool is? Assuming similar output ratio to a 250kL bioreactor (may not be realistic, there's certainly potential issues with oxygenation and other factors), that's about 30 million pounds of meat each year. You might need as many as 3000 of those to produce every pound of beef estimated to be eaten in the U.S. each year. That many bioreactor facilities would displace around 30-40 average size ranches (~15000 acres).
I'll give you that it would require a lot of supporting infrastructure to supply the biofuel, not to mention significant utilities infrastructure, road improvements, etc. This would absolutely cost a staggering amount. Would it ultimately take millions of additional acres to support this level of production? Maybe, but ranches for grazing cattle currently occupy 600+ million acres of land.
Tl;dr: It would be plenty expensive to set up, but the quoted land use reduction seems believable.
The study, which is yet to be peer reviewed
Given the topic, this struck me as an amusing qualifier. Based on the paper's conclusion, said paper should sail through the peer review process with flying colors, given it's probably citing EVERYONE!
a one-time £649 "lifetime" fee that is tied to the car, not you. If you sell it, you have to pay again.
Summary is unclear. The article also notes that Volkswagen did not clarify whether the upgrade is tied to your account or to the car.
If it's to the car, then....*shrug*. If it's to the user...I guess it depends one whether that upgrade is applicable to future cars (seems unlikely).
What I would fear would be treating it like certain console games where you could sell the game disc but certain features (included DLC, content, or w/e) would be tied to a one-time code that came with the game and the purchaser would have to buy a replacement code from the publisher. They can fuck right off with that bullshit.
When you move a file to a non-existent directory in Windows, it renames the file to the destination name instead of moving it.
This is true when the parameters are ambiguous. Assuming the command issued was something along the lines of "move foo bar", an incredibly simple trick is to append a backslash change it to "move foo bar\". The command would return an error about not finding the specified path.
Also, don't force overwrites with "/y" when you aren't planning to overwrite data. Of course, the "AI" could just as easily have been running it interactively and just bulled its way through the unexpected results.
According to all the latest reports, there was no truth in any of the earlier reports.