This energy would then be transmitted to one or more stations on Earth. It is then converted to electricity and delivered to the energy grid or batteries for storage.

How is the energy transmitted to Earth?

I found the intro hook intriguing, but the reporting starts with a lot of media clips and other run-ups, which eventually made me leave.

It’s great they put in so much effort into genuine, on-site reporting, but the already long video report feels even more bloated/filled this way.

I have to wonder if the DMCA was due to the news clips. While they may be fair use for contextualized reporting, I didn’t find them particularly valuable, and DMCA issues could have been avoided without them or without using so many of them.

No, as per the article, their argumentation is that they are not web crawlers generating an index, they are user-action-triggered agents working live for the user.

Why did you link an image instead of the video?

for example, “have seen revenues jump from zero to $20 million in a year,” he said. “It’s because they pick one pain point, execute well, and partner smartly with companies who use their tools,” he added.

Sounds like they were able to sell their AI services. That doesn’t really measure AI success, only product market success.

Celebrating a revenue jump from zero, presumably because they did not exist before, is… quite surprising. It’s not like they became more efficient thanks to AI.

I’m confused by the article suddenly changing to seemingly other semi-related topics and pieces.

I was gifted crypto from two crypto projects for my (crypto-unrelated) open source work. It was a baffling hassle to pay out. Over multiple conversions and significant gas fees and waiting for hours for a transaction and having to juggle wallets and exchange platform service… yeah. From my experience, cryptocurrencies are not feasible for normal, regular payments.

There’s no better payment infrastructure for USDT than for €. It adds additional concerns and technical complexities.

DNS is a listing of address resolution. Ignoring/Dropping records is not modifying existing entries/mappings. That’s a different thing in my eyes.

If the ruling were to declare published content must not be modified, I think there’s multiple levels to it too, and it may dictate to any degree between them.

1. Interpretative tools (like a screen reader would be, or forced high contrast mode), which may be classified accessibility too
2. CSS hacks that change display style but not what is shown (for example forcing a dark mode, reduced spacing, or bigger font sizes)
3. CSS hacks or ad blockers that modify or hide content (block ads that would otherwise be rendered)

The biggest danger for a “copyright violation” would be the last point. Given that styling is part of the website though, “injection with intent to modify” may very well be part of it too, though.

It certainly would go directly against the open web with all of its advantages.

/edit: Comment by manxu, who read the ruling, is a lot less alarming.

Perplexity argues that a platform’s inability to differentiate between helpful AI assistants and harmful bots causes misclassification of legitimate web traffic.

So, I assume Perplexity uses appropriate identifiable user-agent headers, to allow hosters to decide whether to serve them one way or another?

I’m working in a small software development company. We’re exploring AI. It’s not being pushed without foundation.

There’s no need to commit when you don’t even know what you’re committing to, disregarding cost and risk. It just doesn’t make sense. We should expect better from CEOs than emotionally following a fear of missing out without a reasonable assessment.

I’ve never seen anyone hate on forgejo.

and it has fewer large fluctuations now, it seems.

106 to 76 to 120 in the last four months is not large fluctuation? 30 % variance is quite high to me.