Have you ever tweeted something completely made up? What happened? Or, if you haven't done it, what do you think would happen? Suppose, for example, that you tweeted out a claim that "Coca-Cola contains extract of ground-up baby brains". What do you think the legal consequences of that (horrendous!) claim would be?

There is an important legal distinction that this court chose to ignore, which is that you're only liable for incorrect information if it's reasonable to expect that people would believe that you are providing correct information. If you, bubblyceiling, tweet false information, you will not, in fact, be held liable for it, because courts would rightly reject the claim that readers had a reason to believe they should trust you.

Obviously, Google's statements are held to a higher standard that bubblyceiling's. But everyone understood that web search results weren't Google's statements. The question at hand then is whether people believe that Google's LLM's statements are, in fact, statements made by Google, the corporation.

No one could seriously believe that. This court was dead wrong.

Again, it doesn't have to be perfect. Something must be done, this is something.

I think you missed that most of those comments about Trump are gloating that he is demonstrably failing in his effort to destroy renewable power generation and favor fossil fuels -- and especially Beautiful Clean Coal (just like he's failing at approximately everything else, except this failure is good). Once you have that context, it makes a lot more sense.

Well, China, for one, is building renewable energy generation far faster than we are. They're also building a lot of coal plants so it's going to take them some effort to push their emissions down to the global average per capita. However, note that we're far, far above the global average, and also well above China.

As for India and Indonesia, their emissions are already well below the global average, so they're not really the problem. Once we and China get down to their level, then we can all start pushing the average (and therefore total) down further. We need to cut our emissions by 85% to get to that point. Or keep them constant while importing about 1.7 billion people.

Maybe. Ukraine apparently did this two years ago as an experiment, then decided not to continue experimenting, much less make it standard procedure.

Full autonomy was obviously one possible solution when the Russians got good at jamming drone communications. The other was switching to wired control, via kilometers-long spools of ultrathin fiberoptic cable. Ukraine has settled on the latter. This is covering the front lines with a massive spiderweb of fiberoptic cable, which is also a cost, but Ukraine has apparently decided it's what they prefer.

No. Invaders don't get the benefit of the doubt.

People in the US don't want datacentres because they increase the price of electricity and increase pollution. On top of the Epstein-Iran war, energy is getting expensive.

China is going to win this one because they build so much clean renewable energy. The scale is staggering. Just the new renewables generated as much electricity as Germany did in total last year, on top of what they already had. The cost is so low that nobody else can compete when it comes to high energy industries like AI. Domestic chips are developing at pace too, not that blockades did much to prevent imports it seems.

I'm guessing gift cards were handier for unbanked and underbanked people, such as teens who earn a cash allowance or earn cash from yard work for neighbors but aren't old enough to have a bank account in their own name.

There is a convention in the UK that you pass people on the right, so that if two people are walking towards each other they both move right and avoid a collision. Fewer and fewer people seem to be aware of it though.

That doesn't seem any different to some missiles. For example, Russia has the P-700 Granit anti-ship missile, which can be fired in a swarm. They claim that the swarm then selects on missile to pop up and search for targets, prioritizing them based on some criteria (probably size), and then communicating the information to the other missiles.

While there is some question as to how well this actually works, they are not thought to have any way to differentiating friendly or civilian ships. They just kill whatever is in the target area, starting with the largest (or maybe the highest emitter of RF energy or something).

Those things have been around since the 70s.

We have seen a fair few critical bugs in Linux lately, and doubtless there are many we don't know about but which people using Mythos and the like have already found. You can bet that the NSA has a long list, for example.

EVs don't have radiators like that, which use air through a front grille to cool them. The battery cooling is handled by a heat pump (air conditioner) in these cars. That said, they will actually warm the battery up if you navigate to a charger, to get it to the optimum temperature for the fastest charging.

The real issue is the cable. I'm not sure what BYD do, but some are water cooled. Others just rely on charging being so fast, they don't have much time to heat up.

I'd be more worried about a Ford or GM re-badge (e.g. Vauxhall) bricking itself because Trump is having another pissy fit.

These chargers won't be supply 1.5MW constantly. Any car that can actually pull that only takes 5 minutes to charge anyway.

The batteries can easily supply 1.5MW. Come on, the car battery can accept that much, and discharge rates are typically at least as high as charge rates, often higher. They can make extra money by feeding back into the grid with a virtual power plant too.

The way it typically works is they install the chargers and batteries with whatever the grid can support, and the grid upgrades can be done later. The battery buffer means they can supply the full 1.5MW if required. EU countries and the UK are all obliging their grids to support this, as part of their transition to net zero.