Now the real question: If the article didn't exist, where will Google get it's summary from?

I get your complaint, but you should really consider the end game here.

This has been a solved problem for a long time with quite often the correct answer being highlighted or original posts updated. But that's beside the point. If you trust the AI answer, you're not going to click an article or a forum link regardless of whether they show ads or highlight a solution.

Though sometimes you do need to dig deeper. Google's AI never answered WHICH glue to use to keep cheese from sliding off a pizza, you'll need to actually read the reddit post for that.

There's a double WTF here. You could do this already. Just screenshot google earth and feed it into Nano Banana and do what you want. Why did this need to be a feature in Google Earth itself. Even people who aren't competent in AI could do this already.

Despite being poorly implemented by platforms nearly 20% of kids have stopped, and so soon after the laws were enacted? This seems to have worked better than expected. A few fines in the direction of Facebook and Google will improve these numbers further.

Then you just need to wait. When smoking was banned for under 18s the day after they still smoked as well. These days smoking is rare. The current generation is a lost cause, they'll VPN their phone addicted brains to get their daily fix of TikTok if they need to (my niece in Australia is the type of person who would watch two twitch streams in parallel and then have a mild panic when someone asks her to put the phone away at the dinner table, it's insane).

The next generation now stands a chance. People are less likely to join social media as a new customer if they need to jump through hoops to do so.

What has free speech got to do with minors using a product or service?

What next, you think kids should smoke because of free speech?

The thing is, Google is winning. Almost every browser is just a Chrome skin now. Firefox continues its slow spiral into irrelevance.

Funnily enough Firefox recently did the same thing. Integrated AI into the browser, and used AI to find bugs in the code. Shame they couldn't use AI to refactor the code into something that might actually gain some traction. There's a reason why every other browser is a Chrome skin.

If they did act on it, it would be a legal problem as soon as someone on the autism spectrum or otherwise non-neurotypical comes along. In fact I've been accused of being AI more than once, due to certain phrases that apparently AI is fond of. But that's just a mistake, once it happens to someone with a recognized medical condition it becomes discrimination.

A master copy can also mean a copy of the original final cut. The word copy denotes one of many. Many master copies can exist, and are usually used as a source prior to compression.

Also this isn't the traditional movie industry we're talking about. It's netflix. They could very much have sent the actual master copy ahead of time. But yes the journalism leaves a lot of guess work. What is a drive? A HDD? A USB thumbstick?

I think the problem here is you think you know the terms when you don't. "Master copy" is a standard industry term in the multimedia industry. Also copy doesn't explicitly imply that something has necessarily been copied from something. It can also be used to denote something is one of many. The "master copy" is the an original copy that subsequent copies are made from. It does not denote a single item. Multiple master copies can exist.

How? You're still putting faith in the cyber security capabilities of the company you're dealing with. I've very much seen an encrypted drive laying on a desk with a post it note containing the password on it, because encryption is often seen as something relevant to transport, not to the data once it is sitting at a company.

That assumes that whatever you give them remains in the form or on the storage device you give them. I bet you a dollar it won't. The first thing that will happen is it gets loaded onto some corporate network drive or something where it very much will be subject to any hacking process.

It's Netflix. They would have been watching it on a TV.

I've work in technical industries, and they can't handle encryption. You try to send someone an encrypted file with clear instructions to decrypt it, and they will fail and demand you send it over unencrypted instead. I can only imagine that it's even worse in creative industries.

Companies instead rely on contracts obliging the receiver to protect their property. When they don't, a lawsuit like this is the result. And it may even work out better for them, because a movie that might have been a flop instead nets them whatever they can convince a court to award.

Now back in reality consumers don't give a shit and just use whatever is installed on their computers, and corporations actually have a reasonably compelling integrated product from Microsoft that has no equal in terms of a complete package. To pretend otherwise is to not understand what the Office / Azure business even is about.

Your fantasy that Microsoft is successful because people are mindless sheep is just demonstrating your own ignorance.

You wrote a lot of text asking a question that could have been answered by reading only the first half of the first sentence of the summary.