In other news from the Department of Understanding Humans (DUH), flailing your arms madly while jumping burns more calories than standing still.

Great, now rats will be spending all day on Instagram instead of doing important lab work.

"Automated captions are not available on YouTube Kids, the version of the service aimed at children. But many families use the standard version of YouTube"

Or maybe two sentences:

"one video host asked viewers to send in not 'craft ideas' but 'crap ideas'."

And I guess this "study" was one of them. Maybe also "study" some Quentin Tarantino films and conclude that children are being "exposed to a lot of violence" because, although those films aren't aimed at children, some films are, and some parents might have one of his lying around the house.

Great, even bacteria are getting obese, now.

Simply replacing "website" with "web page" would cover it.

More like their AI has attained clickbait levels of intelligence.

She did give up exclusive rights by allowing Instagram to publish it (i.e., after granting Instagram a license, she was / is no longer the only person or entity allowed to publish it). That's what "exclusive rights" means (being the only one allowed to publish it). Likewise, Instagram does not have exclusive rights, because they continue to allow her to publish the image wherever she wants.

The only arguable thing here is, if she deletes the post, can Instagram still use the image, or does deletion revoke the license. But that is not really relevant for this case, since she apparently kept the post up and publicly accessible.

If all they did was embed / link to her Instagram post and she doesn't want it included in the article, all she needs to do is delete that post.

And maybe learn what Instagram is and how it works, for future reference.

Increasingly, the US is the one turning into a fictional country.

But only if you use them regularly. If you use them at irregular intervals, they don't get hot. It's the Klüles-Zubmytter law.

Except no one "held it to be an incontrovertible truth". Red the actual article; the summary was clearly written by someone who can't physics.

Stanislaw Lem's 1976 short story "One hundred and thirty seven seconds" ("Sto trzydzieci siedem sekund") is strangely similar to this (except for the fact that they eventually conclude the article-writing neural network can see 137 seconds into the future).

Oh, I knew they could extract (very limited) parallax information from the plenoptic image data, I just didn't know they had coded that into their software (they didn't have it the last time I checked, they were only doing refocusing).

You could... if your lens was about the size of a galaxy. ;-)

I stand corrected. Last time I'd checked out their software all it could do was refocus. Once they finally support simultaneous refocusing and wiggling (which is technically possible, by limiting the amount of each)... their cameras will still be just as useless.