Remember when HP touted "The Machine" as a revolutionary architecture using persistent main memory?

(Which was just before they entirely focused on selling overpriced ink.)

- Without physical media, even if they are used just as "dongles" not containing the actual game, you own nothing - you are at the mercy of some remote server to exist and be willing to approve of you playing what you already bought and installed. For "Sony", "digital" implies that they can take away your "bought" stuff anytime they want (or automatically if they go out of business).

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.

I'd say "governments" instead of "countries", given that it is only those in power who see an enemy in everyone allowing conversations they cannot read and/or manipulate. Whether this means "Telegram has no backdoors", I would not be certain of that, as Telegram is still a centralized, for-profit service, the owner of which may just sell the data to whoever pays the most, without the users being able to notice.

They probably did not contribute a positive return on investment for the next quarterly budget, and probably had not laid out a business plan yet how to make a profit margin at least as high as Google's advertisement and data broker business. Also, somebody noticed that robots and AI agents contain no folded proteins, so their work was of no future relevance anyway. Such disappointment!

The phrase "vetted researchers at credible institutions" rings all kinds of alarm clocks.
If a government wants transparency about some commercial activity, there are many examples of existing specific reporting or auditing obligations that have been created over centuries. And making data resulting from such reporting/auditing public, via some sort of "freedom of information" act, is also just fine.
But having some "vetted researchers" appointed who decide what they want to look for and what they want to find sounds like the opposite of a dependable, democratically legitimated setting of rules for commercial operations.

... blocks, which will just make the response claim "no no, this is not really author X style", while the generated text will likely not much different than before such part of the system prompt existed.

If "AI" is used "successfully" to make a large part of previously well-off humans unemployed, then it will not matter whether Apple invested into "AI" or not, because their former customer base will have no money to buy their products. Apple is not prepared for a future where humans as customers do not matter anymore - unlike some of the companies now gambling Trillions on data-centers.

... have a look at this entertaining video showing comparisons of such pictures with the reality of products sold with them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Corridor Crew).

Given that Space-X no longer accepts reservations for future Falcon 9 flights, they kind of met that latter goal... the same way how many companies meet the goal of "their current product being their best product" by discontinuing previous products.

I guess they mean some insurers are willing to (financially) insure an installation of their device now that they got certified.
But yes, such does not mean at all their devices can be operated at a profit - it is still possible that the amount of maintenance required makes the energy harvested too expensive for the market.

I have a good idea how that conversation between Microslop and LG went:
"MS: Hey, by suddenly showing Ads you exposed the back-door we built for our vendor's club! Don't do that!"
"LG: Sorry, our bad, our marketing department didn't know the back-door was only meant for spying on the users and sending their data to our servers. We promise to not be caught next time!"
"MS: All good. But don't forget the the user's data is ours to sell, so only looking, no selling, understood?"

You are assuming integer cups of coffee. However, whilst I'm not sure that coffee is delivered in real number quantities, we certainly recognize the request "I'd just like half a cup more", so you should also include 3.5 and 4.5 at the very least.

No, probably / possibly the opposite, however I am suggesting that GSM / 2G is much weaker and that 3G is also known inadequate. You want to lock to LTE or better.

I was really pleasantly surprised by that when I found out, but I realized that ± is in latin-1 so it's allowed on the web even though it's not in traditional ASCII.