Better eat bulls testicles then ...

Considering that semen is more than 90% water ... high protein is relative :P Of course, the little things swimming around are nearly 100% protein, until you put them on a microscope and look more carefully.

"A major scientific review is challenging the idea that more protein is always better,
And who exactly came to that idea?
And more important: who is so stupid to believe that?

Kids aren't sending each other TikToks, or posting on each other's Facebook.
What else are they doing then? Enlighten us!

When I have to surrender my tablet to a kid: it is doing exactly what you claim it does not.

Most "social media" are messaging platforms, or actually what the name implies: social. I share something with my friends, why would a child have less incentive to share anything than an adult?
Are you coming to the party tonight? Oh you missed it? Here are some photos ... and all the others shared some photos too.

Social media bands for kids: make no sense at all. They fake their ids. And most kids who have a sense, faked them long ago.

The "spectacular" framing is about weight and distance, not novelty of technique.
And the narrow edge of navigation.
At some places the houses where only 40cm (a bit more than a foot) apart from the transported construction.

Nope, roughly 125 million years.

The galaxy revolves around 250 million years.
So the solar system passes the plane roughly every 125million years, not ever 25 million.

Yeah, and when exactly was that? Ooops?
A BlackBerry or a Palm PDA was not called a "smartphone".

Google says:
1995: AT&T officially coined and used the term in print to describe its newly designed digital device.
1997: Ericsson popularized the term globally by explicitly labeling their GS88 "Penelope" model as a "smartphone".
The first iPhone was sold 2007.

I do not know why you think that: I work with the EU administration on a daily basis and I have taken several courses on the EU institutions.
Interesting :D

The parliament can only retire the commission as a whole, it cannot retire individual commissioners. I explained that in a previous post.
Perhaps you mentioned it. But that is not explaining it. And it is still wrong.

However so far every time when the parliament took action, the commissioner in question retired by himself.

Perhaps you should learn at least what the term "free speech" means.
Yes: in the US insults are protected under free speech laws, just like in Germany.
That means: the government or any agency of the government, is not coming for you. Because, by law: they cant.

However, just like anywhere else on the planet: the person insulted, can sue you.
And if his case, that he got insulted, is true, and has a point and he wins: you pay compensation.

Stupid idiot.

Taking Scale.ai as an example I couldn't find, from a shallow browse, a real life case study for where their tech was applied?

They are teaching AI systems for customers.

Surely Scale.ai would be shouting about their amazing successes on their front page? As would the organisations that benefitted.
I had assumed that they write on their frontpage that they host "new born" LLMs and "teach" them, for customers.
And no: they do not disclose their customers. Why would they?

I guess you are invested in AI then.
No idea what that is supposed to mean. I have no shares in any AI company - it is 2026 - we are ten years to late to invest.

I think you are misinterpreting.

The model was ASKED to escape the sandbox. As in prompted to do exactly what it did.

Or do you think, it gave a lame answer, and spawned a second process, which escaped the sandbox and suddenly "investigated" something on its own?

I don't think so.

It's going to be very interesting. There are already some copyright owners that provide special models of their own which allow them to attribute percentage ownership from the training data to the generated output. They can do more if they have the full knowledge of the training corpus and details of the model weights, but they don't need that to make "educated guesses" which they can use to sue and then force access to the model that was used to generate the output.

Someone "prompted" it to do that.

Or is here anyone who thinks that an LLM wakes up at night and thinks ... erm .. thinks ...

It is nitpicking.
As it depends on the national parliament if it has the right to do that.
The German parliament does not have that right, oops.
However a "faction" in the parliament does have that right.

No idea bout other European parliaments.

The Commission has no obligation to be forthcoming.
Depends how nitpicking you want to be.

This is really a severe limit on the power of the European Parliament.
Depends how nitpicking you want to be. The parliament can retire every commissioner or the whole commission, if they vote so.
Basically out of a blue sky.

Sorry, why argue about something that is not important to you - and you have no clue about?