Yes it is different to the old cable bundles because with the old channels you could only watch what they were showing. Hence, to be sure that you had something to watch you needed to subscribe to multiple channels and they gradually showed you what you wanted spread over months or years.

Streaming services are different because once you subscribe you have access to everything they have. We generatlly subscribe to 1-2 services watch everything we want over a period of several months to a year and then switch to a different service and get a whole new library to watch. By the time we have cycled back to the original streaming service a couple of years have passed and they have new content and it has been a while since we watched the old too. You can't do that with cable channels because you do not control what they show.

Absolutely true but the truly stupid thing here is that, because Africa is on the equator, it's one of the continents that is least distorted by the mercator projection. Not only that but the default is to centre of the Greenwich meridian which puts Africa at the centre of the map. I'm finding it really hard to understand why using a map projection which distorts Africa the least and centres the entire map on it can be interpreted as "marginalising" Africa and making them feel less valued, indeed if anything it makes it look like the map makers cared more about Africa than anywhere else.

Actually I was thinking more of the Black Mirror epsiode where a medical AI implant replaces some critical brain functions after an accident and the poor woman starts speaking ads. It also shows the problem with adding ads to ChatGPT - how will anyone know whether the output was a true response from the AI or sponsored content from an advertizer?

For things like that I completely agree. Similarly the new bamboo spoons and forks are just as good as the plastic ones they replaced, if not better and stronger. However, try using a wooden knife or a paper straw and you'll see that there are limits. What I'd like to see is a more sensible approach where we replace the obvious things with non-plastic alternatives and work on finding solutions for the rest. However, in today's world it seems that either you have to support replacing everything immediately or nothing at all - the art of compromise seems to be lost.

While you can interpret the headline as saying that a new type of supernova has been detected as a black hole - since a black hole is a supernova remnant - this would be the pre-cursor supernova to the one actually observed and would have be a "regular" supernova, not a new type. However, since this supernova remnant (the Black Hole) did cause a star to explode this interpretation is still close to correct.

The other possible, and correct, interpretation is that a new type of supernova has been detected by the observation of a black hole causing a star to explode. There is no interpretation that is consistent with the act of detecting causing the explosion so no quantum interpretation is needed and even the alternative interpretation is technically not far from correct.

Possible, but I suspect that the effect will be quite small since it is X% times the reduction in life from under inflation. If also means that there is no longevity advantage at all for people who do maintain their tyres and I suspect that these are also the people who would be most likely to spend more money on new tyre technology. Indeed, I suspect this may be part of the problem: airless-tyres offer the most benefit to those least likely to care enough to spend more money on them.

...to welcome our AI-elected overlords?

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing where AI can be useful in an electoral system. The key feature of an election is that an average member of the public must be able to know that it was fair so they can accept the result. This means it not only has to be fair but also seen to be fair. AI algorithms are usually completely opaque even to experts in the field and their fairness depends entirely on their training which again is not something a member of the public can readily determine was fair.

Will they last longer? Everytime I have replaced tyres it has been because the tread became too worn, not because they got a puncture. Why will an uninflated tyre's tread last longer?

Are you factoring in the far greater rate of high-speed lead pollution found in US cities compared to their western counterparts? Lead is a known carcinogen and highly toxic as well.

Actually I do not see how this is great for similar reasons: it relies entirely one someone saying that a video is fake because it did not have some coded light pattern. How do we know that this person is telling the truth? If a genuine, but embarassing, video was filmed under normal lights they could simply claim that it was fake because it lacked the special light pattern.

This method lets the creator of the video know whether or not it has been manipulated but since they were there they should know that already. It does nothing to help a random member of the public know because it relies on the truthfulness of the video creator.

No, but I bet the AI's that use those emails as training data are a very significant consumer and, if you are a clueless politician that makes it our fault for leaving all that data around for AI training purposes.

That's to be expected because the UK is in decline. Engineers and scientists know how to build new things but when it comes to shutting things down you need lawyers.

Well, in this context, I'd take it to be that you can abstract the specific pattern into general conceptsthat can then be applied to situations that you have never encountered before to get an appropriate response. LLMs can do pattern matching extremely well but they cannot do the abstraction at all, although they can fake it sometimes given how well they can do the pattern matching.

To use the example of the OP, an animal that only uses pattern matching and that encounters a new predator of a type they had never seen before might not decide to run because the new predator does not look like their known ones. However, one capable of more abstract reasoning would see the sharp teeth, claws etc and reason that this new thing has some of the same deadly features as some of their known predators and therefore they had better run now.

Only on reasoning that corresponds to the data they were trained on. This shows that LLMs are behaving as complicated parrots. They do not understand what they are doing. All they can do is mimic the reasoning found in their training data and, the moment they are asked about something that requires a pattern of logical reasoning that they have not specifically been trained on they fail. This shows that they are not "thinking" at all in the sense that humans do since we can apply logic and reasoning to new situations.

Which meaning is "far from common"? I've seen it used both ways and I think the "diligent" meaning is the more common usage while you suggest otherwise. The diligent meaning is generally the more common one I've encountered. That's been the case in English for as long as I've been around but perhaps it's different in related languages like American?