Yours is a far more eloquent way of saying what I had intended to: why is this on Slashdot? Is there any relevance at all? I fail to see it.

If these athletes were coached by AI, well... maybe, but that's a stretch. But they're not; they are just taking more extreme measures to performance enhancement than other athletes. And while I know (and employ) some smart jocks, I had the same experience as you in secondary school, because I, too, was not a jock.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that the license ran out and the copyright owner wanted too much money or some other onerous condition, so google decided to wait until the next satellite pass when they'll get all the imagery.

Only recently has it been anything other than relative ranking.

What questions that they asked, for which he said the answers were on the web site, can he not legally answer?

He clearly had an axe to grind with CNBC, given his multiple passive-aggressive mentions of how they predicted his downfall.

The one interviewer appeared to strike a body blow when she asked if his motivations were tied to a performance-based compensation package. All of GameStop's flailing malarky makes sense through that lens: the CEO was trying a hail mary, 'cause otherwise he gets didly-squat. Part of that malarky is claiming to own 5% of eBay when, as the main interviewer pointed out, most of that so-called ownership was through derivatives. This guy's a fraud. Time to short GameStop.

The interview shows the CEO is kind of a jerk. He probably shouldn't be put in situations where communication is a requirement, like public interviews that are intended to help achieve an aggressive goal.

It's like he didn't understand he was on air during the conversation, despite the host clearly calling out that there was an audience listening.

The stark response from eBay is certainly understandable, having seen the interview.

Agreed that the Mach-E is a terrible name. But how did they screw up such a guaranteed out-of-the-park home run with an electric Mustang? I mean the whole image of the Mustang is a sporty performance vehicle for the young and stupidly lead-footed. Mustangs are classically known for acceleration and EVs are wickedly good at that. I mean, if Ford were to create a 1965-styled electric Mustang, I shudder to think how many boomers would buy them. They were the dream car of an entire generation.

Ford, are you listening?

What if you write a bunch of random noise of the same file size to weights.bin ... what happens then?

As a friend of mine in an uncharacteristic fit of insight once said, as long as there is a decision point that can be discovered, yes and the code goes this way, no and the code goes that way, it is in principle possible to write a patch to circumvent any DRM.

Here, there is a timeout test.

Need I say more?

The classic counter-example is Cheap Trick's Live at Budokan album which for many, myself included, had the definitive versions of many of their songs. If memory serves, they spliced a couple of different shows together for the release, but it was done pretty seamlessly.

Apparently the rain doesn't reach the surface. But it is still only slightly less hellish on the surface for the lack of droplets of concentrated sulfuric acid pelting down.

Unanalyzed raw video. Internet noise. Those would qualify as, "a whole lot of garbage that someone could possibly, maybe analyze to make some statistical inferences about conceivably sensitive data."

There's not 10 petabytes of sensitive data in all the world. 10 petabytes is enough to store a copy of every movie and television show ever released to DVD plus every book ever written in any language on Earth.

What they captured was some sensitive data and a whole lot of garbage that someone could possibly, maybe analyze to make some statistical inferences about conceivably sensitive data.

They sabotage themselves just fine with user-hostile security implementations and bloat bloat bloat.

Or iPhones?

I have not seen AI code that is *more* efficient than human code, yet. I have seen AI write efficient, compact code when pressed, very, very hard to do so, but only then. Otherwise, in my hands, and those of my developer colleagues, AI produces mostly correct, but inefficient, verbose code.

Could that change? Sure, I suppose. But right now it is not the case, and the value system that is driving auto-generated code (i.e., the training set of extant code), does not put a premium on efficiency.