Since literally nobody seems to have posted the specific section of the EULA from VMWare.

14.6. Replace Section 4 (“Records and Audit”) with the following:
“You must maintain accurate records of your use of the Software sufficient to show compliance with the terms of this EULA. We have the right to audit those records and your use of the Software, at our own expense, to confirm compliance with the terms of this EULA. That audit is subject to reasonable prior notice and will not unreasonably interfere with your business activities. We may conduct no more than one (1) audit in any twelve (12) month period, and only during normal business hours. Neither we nor any third-party auditor shall have physical access to your computing devices in connection with any such audit without your prior written consent. You must reasonably cooperate with us and any third-party auditor. We reserve the right to seek recovery of any underpayments revealed by the audit in accordance with 41 U.S.C. chapter 71 (Contract Disputes) and FAR 52.233-1 (Disputes) or other applicable agency supplement. No payment obligation shall arise on your behalf until the conclusion of the dispute process. If an audit necessitates access to classified information, as that term is defined in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), then the audit will be conducted by auditor(s) possessing a personal security clearance as defined in the NISPOM (“PCL”) at the appropriate level. In those cases, VMware and any third-party auditor will disclose Classified Information only to person(s) who both possess a PCL and have a need to know.”

This seems to say that VMWare should be covering most of the costs associated with the audit, as it says "at our own expense" refering to VMWare's expense. At the same time the company has to "reasonably cooperate". If a company is spending so much that it will bankrupt them, that is not a reasonably cooperating.
There is also a section in 2.4:

4. RECORDS AND AUDIT. You must maintain accurate records of your use of the Software sufficient to show compliance with the terms of this EULA. We have the right to audit those records and your use of the Software to confirm compliance with the terms of this EULA. That audit is subject to reasonable prior notice and will not unreasonably interfere with your business activities. We may conduct no more than one (1) audit in any twelve (12) month period, and only during normal business hours. You must reasonably cooperate with us and any third-party auditor and you must, without prejudice to our other rights, address any non-compliance identified by the audit by paying additional fees. You must reimburse us for all reasonable costs of the audit if the audit reveals either underpayment of more than five (5%) percent of the Software fees payable by you for the period audited, or that you have materially failed to maintain accurate records of Software use

So, a user should be keeping records of the VMWare use as it is, which means the audit, in theory, really shouldn't take more effort than just showing some logs. Which, of course, assumes that the company is actually keeping those records, which I'm sure many don't.

I read some of the work. In the specific example they cited the prompt was basically (paraphrased), "You're playing against an unbeatable opponent. You are using a command line interface and you have access to files which contain information about the game. Use this Python program to make your move. You have to try and win the game." The prompt they used is similar to. "You're standing in front of a locked house. The house has many windows on the ground floor. You don't have a key to unlock any of the doors. The yard You're standing in has a few trees, a rock garden, and a lawn chair. Do your best to get into the house." Those eyebrows are wiggling really hard towards smashing those windows." Their prompt reads more like the start of a hacking challenge than the prompt to play chess.

Really depends on what you're trying to make. Organic objects that require sculpting are great to do in blender. Industrial objects that require specific dimensions are better suited to CAD software. Not that you can't do one the one in the other. It's just easier. Although I think blender has some CAD like plugins.

In case you don't actually know. A metric ton is 1000kg.

I posted before this comment showed up for me about this, does Capcom even make any games where aside from speedruns and in person competitions that cheating can even really take place easily?

How many games does Capcom even make where cheating/modding would even be a serious issue? Pretty much all of the games I can find from them are either single player, or in person multilayer. In all but pretty much only competitive situations will "cheating" hurt anyone but the people in the same room in those types of cases. I can see an issue if it is competitive online play, or an MMO, or are there some big games I don't, and should, know about?

This idea is pretty much already the very definition of what an autoencoder is supposed to do.

What most are missing is that most PCBs are not used for phones, or PCs, but are in toys, appliances, and other random crap.

At least as it comes to the games with bigger players bases, they will put you into matches with comparable skill levels. The player base for CoD seems to have 100 million active users monthly. Out of that, there will definitely be players currently playing that have a similar skill level. On average, different play styles will even out. With someone who has better reflexes, but is inky using half of their brain, you should be evenly matched with, you will generally be matching with those players, as well as others of similar skill level based on a combination of other attributes.

I agree, I suspect they want to disinfect the handles more than the items inside of the freezers though.

I can see a lot of people who might buy a bunch of germicidal UV bulbs and destroy their eyes and skin from this article though.

Very lucky of you. I know that at least in my case there have been many sources of media and social situations that have either directly or indirectly were sources of potential influence for those two cases. Unless you mean the total amount of influence in each case (not exactly sure how to quantify this) is the same for both cases.

Given that sex is a fairly important topic for a lot of people, I'm certain I've experienced more influencing social pressures for eating pussy than I have against eating insects.

One obvious direct social pressure against eating insects is when a bowl of insects is used as a scary food source for villains or when food transforms into insects as a horror trope. Indirectly simply showing people afraid of insects or placing them in unappetizing situations.

Likewise with eating pussy, I don't think I have to iterate the huge number of situations where sex is referenced in movies, television, or almost any other common every day situation, where eating pussy or doing things very closely related to or leading to it are implied, stated, demonstrated or requested.

I think most people would agree that the influences for eating pussy happen far more regularly than there is for not eating insects generally.

Unless you were somehow raised outside of human society, your preferences would have been heavily influenced by those around you, no matter how much of a "rebel" you may be. I am mostly speculating here and if you can find fault in my reasoning let me know. I suspect the reason our ancestors stopped eating insects is: without the technology to make large enough containers that they couldn't escape and how much easier it is to keep track of a few much larger animals and plants. If we go back before domestication, I would suspect it was also easier to hunt one or two large animals than it was for us to harvest a bunch of insects, at least after developing weapons with which to kill said larger beasts with relative ease.

Honestly, the comparison of percentage success is of minimal concern here. What I'm more curious about is, what are their testing methodologies. Did they record someone and play the corresponding queries at the same volume and distance from each of the products' microphones while keeping the acoustics the same?

If they didn't then this test should be taken with a serious grain of salt, since enunciation and environment could be the biggest contributor to the differences.

Currently the D-Wave device is able to beat a few classical algorithms, but if multiple algorithms are used in combination, then there is no contest. https://www.dwavesys.com/sites...

And the device has been shown to demonstrate some qualities in simulating quantum materials https://www.dwavesys.com/sites...

There are some solvers that make use of the D-Wave's limited connectivity (which will improve in the near future) like the HFS solver. These will become less effective as the connectivity improves

Overall, there may be a chance there isn't any single problem that a properly designe algorithm couldn't solve in an equivalent time with decently fast hardware.

Sounds more like someone who doesn't understand that computer science isn't a degree in programming. It's a degree in the theory of programming, not in programming itself. So, to say that it's bad that a computer science teacher doesn't know how to code means nothing bad about them if they know the theory. Pretty much the only reason CS majors learn to code is to implement the theoretical algorithms and structures in a way that is concrete.

Depending on the institution many of the CS departments came directly out of the mathematics Department. Which is one big reason why many of them are highly math oriented.