Standard blog-type article. Write the same paragraph a dozen times and call it a day.

Because of the very thing they're writing about, I imagine.

I believe the deadliest aviation disaster listed here in the above post was mostly on the ground: a KLM 747 was taking off and was only a few feet off the ground when it crashed into a Pan Am 747 that was taxiing across the runway. About six hundred people died, the Tenerife airport disaster.

Even if that were true (which I don't believe was the case), that actually gets to my original point: that TNG suffered less from this issue due to its greater use of physical models, whereas the bulk of later-season DS9 exterior shots were CG. TNG simply had a greater proportion of practical effects - shot on film - than CGI effects than DS9, and DS9 more than Voyager. For example, the only appearance of a CGI model for the Enterprise D (edit: on TV) was in DS9 - the model never appeared in TNG, and every exterior shot of the Enterprise in that series was a physical model. Meanwhile, in DS9, by the later seasons most of the Defiant's exterior shots were CGI (and those that weren't were mostly stock footage from prior seasons).

The TNG remaster made significant use of new CGI, or substantially updated CGI, where the base assets had to be updated. They were often not starting from scratch, but in no sense just re-rendering. Moreover, many assets were created brand new from scratch because the base assets were considered unacceptable (wide shots of planets, for example, are the most common, as well as some whole characters like the crystalline entity).

While the CGI may be saved, it would be distracting if they just re-rendered it and inserted it into otherwise remastered video. If you're going to go through the effort of remastering, you'd never accept that. The base assets are simply not at a comparable quality.

The 35mm reels are in a salt mine somewhere just waiting... Waiting...

It's too bad they basically abandoned model work by the end of DS9. Makes the whole process a lot more expensive, for something that was already of dubious financial value.

Law enforcement have to scrimp and save, so they have to settle for facial recognition through CCTV instead.

Indeed. I didn't see anything in the article to suggest any sort of academic guideline on how the use of ChatGPT is to be evaluated, just that it is not prima facie unethical to use.

What does the value of quoting a chatbot, or what does the improvement afforded by quoting a chatbot, have to do with what should be allowed? What is and is not allowed is an ethical issue, not one of pedagogy. Being lazy and unoriginal is allowed already, this is just a new means of being lazy and unoriginal so long as it isn't also done unethically.

A teacher is still free to give an F for someone who writes an essay full of block quotes to ChatGPT. They're just not obligated to give an F and recommend disciplinary action.

Nokia hasn't made a phone in about a decade. Anything with their name on it in that timeframe was a licensing deal. They dropped smartphones a long time ago, and they don't think the phones with their licensed branding hurts their core brand in core market of network infrastructure.

Your use of 'could' seems misplaced. They haven't made a phone in a decade, and have a revenue of 22B euros. I think that's not quite as speculative as you're implying.

Their largest business sector is networking equipment, where it is a major competitor to Cisco and Huawei. It's building a big chunk of America's 5G rollout.

I just read through 18 USC 798 and it really does not seem to suggest that the receiving party / 'unauthorized person' is at fault, at least under that law. As I am not a lawyer, could you explain why that is and/or why a layperson's reading is misleading?

Edit: 18 USC 793 and 794 deal with simple possession of "defense information", but not necessarily classified information. Notwithstanding the fact that these descriptions may have significant overlap, is it through this mechanism that you're referencing? ie, are these terms de facto or de jure synonymous, or are they merely commonly mutually applicable?

Leaking classified documents is a crime.

Playing a game whose community members have leaked classified documents is not a crime.

By way of comparison, giving classified documents to the Washington Post is a crime. Receiving classified documents as a journalist at the Washington Post is not a crime. Reading the Washington Post is also not a crime.

The sum-total of the 'news' in this article is that an interviewer asked a yes/no question about a game. That 'may' in the title is probably going to buckle under the strain its taking, since we have no idea what the consequences of that question are, there's no indication that it's unto itself a security flag, and we don't even know if there's a follow-up question.

Now, this is just pure speculation, which I suppose qualifies me to write for PCMag, but I'm going to guess there is at least one or two more forks in the interviewer's question script before they declare you a risk to national security.

My brother - a personal trainer, and a former national powerlifting record holder in his weight class - insists that the only equipment that is truly 'required' for strength training at nearly any level are dumbbells. Everything else is a luxury (even if, obviously, luxuries are nice).

There are structures at the scale in the name, but which structure they're referring to is ambiguous between different manufacturers (and sometimes generations). Intel's 14nm has similar transistor pitch to TSMC's 7nm process, for instance, and both have transistor pitches on the order of 40nm.