A shareholder sued Warner Bros. Discovery for misleading investors on the impact of losing its long-standing rights deal with the NBA.

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/mapporn by /u/Idontknowofname on 2024-11-27 13:53:16+00:00.

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/mapporn by /u/geographyfacts on 2024-11-27 10:07:47+00:00.

The bottom line

In their paper, the MITEI team calls DAC a “very seductive concept.” Using DAC to suck CO2 out of the air and generate high-quality carbon-removal credits can offset reduction requirements for industries that have hard-to-abate emissions. By doing so, DAC would minimize disruptions to key parts of the world’s economy, including air travel, certain carbon-intensive industries, and agriculture. However, the world would need to generate billions of tonnes of CO2 credits at an affordable price. That prospect doesn’t look likely. The largest DAC plant in operation today removes just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, and the price to buy the company’s carbon-removal credits on the market today is $1,500 per tonne.

The researchers recognize that there is room for energy efficiency improvements in the future, but DAC units will always be subject to higher work requirements than CCS applied to power plant or industrial flue gases, and there is not a clear pathway to reducing work requirements much below the levels of current DAC technologies.

Nevertheless, the researchers recommend that work to develop DAC continue “because it may be needed for meeting net-zero emissions goals, especially given the current pace of emissions.” But their paper concludes with this warning: “Given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue.”

The FIA Formula 1 race stewards explained the process behind penalising McLaren's Oscar Piastri at the Las Vegas Grand Prix.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/22488573

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/coolguides by /u/anxiety_support on 2024-11-27 12:32:46+00:00.

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/coolguides by /u/everydayasl on 2024-11-27 10:36:56+00:00.

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/coolguides by /u/patenttolove on 2024-11-27 10:08:11+00:00.

If the Chiefs beat the Raiders on Black Friday, Patrick Mahomes will have his 100th win as a starting quarterback, counting the postseason.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/22941311

How can I add a simple requirement "do not train Al on the source code of the program" to AGPLv3 or GPLv3 and thereby create a new license?

Don't know is it a good place for such a question but I try :).

Why did I come up with such an stupid idea? There have been reported cases where artificial intelligence such as Github Copilot has been trained on many open source and free software projects, and in some cases it can output code snippets from GPL-licensed projects without specifying it. https://www.pixelstech.net/article/1682104779-GitHub-Copilot-may-generate-code-containing-GPL-code

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know where it is better to insert such a requirement. And how to formulate it in the best and correct form.

I understand it maybe complicated to check, to comply with this requirement and it may cause other difficulties, but I still think it can be a useful addition.

How to fit it with the fundamental freedoms of the GPL or it is unfitable?

I understand that this would make the license non-free, since it puts constraints on what the code can be used for. It's sad that it doesn't combine in some way. Maybe change requirements to do not train "closed source AI"(without code and training data of AI model publicly available).

And how can I name it? Is it better to name it without "GPL" If this new license cannot be considered free? NoAIFL or your variants :)?

Is it good to just add a new item?

For example like this:

Additional Clause:
You may not use the source code of this program, or any part thereof, to train any artificial intelligence model, machine learning model, or similar system without explicit written permission from the copyright holder.

or

Section [X]:
Restrictions on AI Training You may not use the source code of this program, or any part thereof, to train any artificial intelligence model, machine learning model, or similar system without explicit written permission from the copyright holder.

What you think about it? Maybe you already know licenses like this?