According to reports, the Duke and Duchess are living a happy life.Luxury since you stepped back as senior members the Royal FamilyMoving to North AmericaAccording to a source, Harry is currently in North America.A “baller”, who doesn’t mind spending money and has been associated to aCrowd of tech billionaires.
The source stated that “He’s not in the showbiz lot like people would expect.”
“Rather than spending time in Adele or James Corden’s company, Harry and I would rather spend our time with them.”Meghan and the LA wealthy: Owners of large companies.Jet-set types can fly private planes.
“He spends his time in Malibu and Montecito.”
Harry began his executive job in March at Betterup, a Silicon Valley startup.It’s a coaching and mental-health firm.
The Duke and Duchess also signed multi-million-dollar deals with Spotify and Netflix.
But, Daniela Elser (royal commentator), writes for Australian newsOutlet News.com.au: The Duke and Duchess Of Sussex “haven’t”Hollywood was set ablaze by your words.
According to previous estimates, the couple would have to pay approximately $ 5.9 million for security and their Montecito house.
However, even though you have some serious cash and are able to hang with some of the most prestigious people in the world,According to LA’s best, Harry is the most famous LA resident.He attends parties.
Eden Confidential was told by a royal source: “Harry told multiple people.”They want Lili to be christened at Windsor just like her.Brother.
Washington, Indianapolis, Arizona and the Los Angeles Chargers had the four lowest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the league as of Thursday.
Editor’s Note: The video above is from June 2021.
Four NFL teams remain under 50% vaccinated less than two weeks from the start of training camp, a person familiar with the vaccination rates told The Associated Press.
Washington, Indianapolis, Arizona and the Los Angeles Chargers had the four lowest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the league as of Thursday, according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, because the league hasn’t released the numbers.
Pittsburgh, Miami, Carolina and Denver have the highest vaccination rates and are among 10 teams that have achieved at least 85%. About 73% of players have been vaccinated. Teams on the lower end of the vaccination table face potential competitive disadvantages.
The NFL doesn’t plan to cancel any games this season, the person said.
In a memo sent to clubs last week and obtained by the AP on Thursday, the NFL, in conjunction with the NFLPA, updated protocols to allow teams traveling to joint practices to have their daily maximum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 individuals. The traveling party will be either 100 or 140, depending on the club’s vaccination percentage. The club must limit the number of individuals traveling on the team transportation to 85 but may travel additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 staff up to the applicable daily Tier limits separately to attend the practice.
Also, beginning at the start of training camp, teams will be required to develop a method to visually identify fully vaccinated Tier 1 and Tier 2 individuals.
Utilizing color coded wristbands or credentials are recommended but clubs are free to implement other methods.
Last month, the NFL and the players’ union updated protocols to loosen restrictions for fully vaccinated players and to encourage others to get the vaccine.
Unvaccinated players must continue to get daily testing, wear masks and practice physical distancing. They won’t be allowed to eat meals with teammates, can’t participate in media or marketing activities while traveling, aren’t permitted to use the sauna or steam room and may not leave the team hotel or interact with people outside the team while traveling. Vaccinated players will not have any of those restrictions.
Copilot is pitched as a helpful aid to developers. But some programmers object to the blind copying of blocks of code used to train the algorithm.
Earlier this month, Armin Ronacher, a prominent open-source developer, was experimenting with a new code-generating tool from GitHub called Copilot when it began to produce a curiously familiar stretch of code. The lines, drawn from the source code of the 1999 video game Quake III, are infamous among programmers—a combo of little tricks that add up to some pretty basic math, imprecisely. The original Quake coders knew they were hacking. “What the fuck,” one commented in the code beside an especially egregious shortcut.
So it was strange for Ronacher to see such code generated by Copilot, an artificial intelligence tool that is marketed to generate code that is both novel and efficient. The AI was plagiarizing—copying the hack (including the profane comment) verbatim. Worse yet, the code it had chosen to copy was under copyright protection. Ronacher posted a screenshot to Twitter, where it was entered as evidence in a roiling trial-by-social-media over whether Copilot is exploiting programmers’ labor.
Copilot, which GitHub calls “your AI pair programmer,” is the result of a collaboration with OpenAI, the formerly nonprofit research lab known for powerful language-generating AI models such as GPT-3. At its heart is a neural network that is trained using massive volumes of data. Instead of text, though, Copilot’s source material is code: millions of lines uploaded by the 65 million users of GitHub, the world’s largest platform for developers to collaborate and share their work. The aim is for Copilot to learn enough about the patterns in that code that it can do some hacking itself. It can take the incomplete code of a human partner and finish the job. For the most part, it appears successful at doing so. GitHub, which was purchased by Microsoft in 2018, plans to sell access to the tool to developers.
To many programmers, Copilot is exciting because coding is hard. While AI can now generate photo-realistic faces and write plausible essays in response to prompts, code has been largely untouched by those advances. An AI-written text that reads strangely might be embraced as “creative,” but code offers less margin for error. A bug is a bug, and it means the code could have a security hole or a memory leak, or more likely that it just won’t work. But writing correct code also demands a balance. The system can’t simply regurgitate verbatim code from the data used to train it, especially if that code is protected by copyright. That’s not AI code generation; that’s plagiarism.
GitHub says Copilot’s slip-ups are only occasional, but critics say the blind copying of code is less of an issue than what it reveals about AI systems generally: Even if code is not copied directly, should it have been used to train the model in the first place? GitHub has been unclear about precisely which code was involved in training Copilot, but it has clarified its stance on the principles as the debate over the tool has unfolded: All publicly available code is fair game regardless of its copyright.
That hasn’t sat well with some GitHub users who say the tool both depends on their code and ignores their wishes for how it will be used. The company has taken both free-to-use and copyrighted code and “put it all in a blender in order to sell the slurry to commercial and proprietary interests,” says Evelyn Woods, a Colorado-based programmer and game designer whose tweets on the topic went viral. “It feels like it’s laughing in the face of open source.”
AI tools bring industrial scale and automation to an old tension at the heart of open source programming: Coders want to share their work freely under permissive licenses, but they worry that the chief beneficiaries will be large businesses that have the scale to profit from it. A corporation takes a young startup’s free-to-use code to corner a market or uses an open source library without helping with the maintenance. Code-generating AI systems that rely on large data sets mean everyone’s code is potentially subject to reuse for commercial applications.
“I’m generally happy to see expansions of free use, but I’m a little bitter when they end up benefiting massive corporations who are extracting value from smaller authors’ work en masse,” Woods says.
One thing that’s clear about neural networks is that they can memorize their training data and reproduce copies. That risk is there regardless of whether that data involves personal information or medical secrets or copyrighted code, explains Colin Raffel, a professor of computer science at the University of North Carolina who coauthored a preprint (not yet peer-reviewed) examining similar copying in OpenAI’s GPT-2. Getting the model, which is trained on a large corpus of text, to spit out training data was rather trivial, they found. But it can be difficult to predict what a model will memorize and copy. “You only really find out when you throw it out into the world and people use and abuse it,” Raffel says. Given that, he was surprised to see that GitHub and OpenAI had chosen to train their model with code that came with copyright restrictions.
According to GitHub’s internal tests, direct copying occurs in roughly 0.1 percent of Copilot’s outputs—a surmountable error, according to the company, and not an inherent flaw in the AI model. That’s enough to cause a nit in the legal department of any for-profit entity (“non-zero risk” is just “risk” to a lawyer), but Raffel notes this is perhaps not all that different from employees copy-pasting restricted code. Humans break the rules regardless of automation. Ronacher, the open source developer, adds that most of Copilot’s copying appears to be relatively harmless—cases where simple solutions to problems come up again and again, or oddities like the infamous Quake code, which has been (improperly) copied by people into many different codebases. “You can make Copilot trigger hilarious things,” he says. “If it’s used as intended I think it will be less of an issue.”
GitHub has also indicated it has a possible solution in the works: a way to flag those verbatim outputs when they occur so that programmers and their lawyers know not to reuse them commercially. But building such a system is not as simple as it sounds, Raffel notes, and it gets at the larger problem: What if the output is not verbatim, but a near copy of the training data? What if only the variables have been changed, or a single line has been expressed in a different way? In other words, how much change is required for the system to no longer be a copycat? With code-generating software in its infancy, the legal and ethical boundaries aren’t yet clear.
Many legal scholars believe AI developers have fairly wide latitude when selecting training data, explains Andy Sellars, director of Boston University’s Technology Law Clinic. “Fair use” of copyrighted material largely boils down to whether it is “transformed” when it is reused. There are many ways of transforming a work, like using it for parody or criticism or summarizing it—or, as courts have repeatedly found, using it as the fuel for algorithms. In one prominent case, a federal court rejected a lawsuit brought by a publishing group against Google Books, holding that its process of scanning books and using snippets of text to let users search through them was an example of fair use. But how that translates to AI training data isn’t firmly settled, Sellars adds.
It’s a little odd to put code under the same regime as books and artwork, he notes. “We treat source code as a literary work even though it bears little resemblance to literature,” he says. We may think of code as comparatively utilitarian; the task it achieves is more important than how it is written. But in copyright law, the key is how an idea is expressed. “If Copilot spits out an output that does the same thing as one of its training inputs does—similar parameters, similar result—but it spits out different code, that’s probably not going to implicate copyright law,” he says.
The ethics of the situation are another matter. “There’s no guarantee that GitHub is keeping independent coders’ interests to heart,” Sellars says. Copilot depends on the work of its users, including those who have explicitly tried to prevent their work from being reused for profit, and it may also reduce demand for those same coders by automating more programming, he notes. “We should never forget that there is no cognition happening in the model,” he says. It’s statistical pattern matching. The insights and creativity mined from the data are all human. Some scholars have said that Copilot underlines the need for new mechanisms to ensure that those who produce the data for AI are fairly compensated.
GitHub declined to answer questions about Copilot and directed me to an FAQ about the system. In a series of posts on Hacker News, GitHub CEO Nat Friedman responded to the developer outrage by projecting confidence about the fair use designation of training data, pointing to an OpenAI position paper on the topic. GitHub was “eager to participate” in coming debates over AI and intellectual property, he wrote.
Ronacher says that he expects advocates of free software to defend Copilot—and indeed, some already have—out of concern that drawing limits on fair use could jeopardize the free sharing of software more broadly. But it’s unclear if the tool will spark meaningful legal challenges that clarify the fair use issues anytime soon. The kind of tasks people are tackling with Copilot are mostly boilerplate, Ronacher points out—unlikely to run afoul of anyone. But for him, that’s part of why the tool is exciting, because it means automating away annoying tasks. He already uses permissive licenses whenever he can in the hopes that other developers will pluck out whatever is useful, and Copilot could help automate that sharing process. “An engineer shouldn’t waste two hours of their life implementing a function I’ve already done,” he says.
But Ronacher can see the challenges. “If you’ve spent your life doing something, you expect something for it,” he says. At Sentry, a debugging software startup where he is director of engineering, the team recently tightened some of its most permissive licenses—with great reluctance, he says—for fear that “a large company like Amazon could just run away with our stuff.” As AI applications advance, those companies are poised to run faster.
Emphasising that each dose of the Covid-19 vaccine is precious and that governments are “concerned about making sure that each dose is tracked and wastage is minimised”, Prime Minister Narendra Modi Monday said an “end-to-end” digital approach in vaccination is essential to address these concerns and said India’s CoWIN platform would be made available to other countries soon.
Addressing the CoWIN Global Conclave via video-conferencing on Monday, Prime Minister Modi offered the vaccination tracking platform as a digital “public good” to other countries.
“Vaccination is the best hope for humanity to emerge successfully from the pandemic. And right from the beginning, we in India decided to adopt a completely digital approach while planning our vaccination strategy. In today’s globalised world, if the post-pandemic world has to return to normalcy, such a digital approach is essential. After all, people must be able to prove that they have been vaccinated,” Modi said.
“We now need to learn to live with the virus, which, as the scientists tell us, will be with us forever and start focusing on delivering the PM’s plan to lead the way in vaccinating vulnerable people around the world.”
According to the latest Government statistics, almost 79 percent of UK adults have received their first dose of the vaccine.
In addition, 27.8 million people are now fully inoculated against the virus.
The official time for Mr Johnson’s announcement tomorrow has not yet been announced but Covid press briefings from Downing Street have typically taken place at 5pm over the last year.
It seems another high-profile video game company has been hacked. This time it is the third-party giant Electronic Arts.
The data breach was originally reported on by VICE Motherboard, which reveals hackers have stolen “a wealth of game source code and related tools” for the Frostbite engine (known for powering games like FIFA).
The hackers say they apparently have “full capability of exploiting” EA services and have supposedly stolen 780GB of data. They’re now attempting to sell it.
An EA spokesperson confirmed the company had been compromised, in a statement to Motherboard:
“We are investigating a recent incident of intrusion into our network where a limited amount of game source code and related tools were stolen”
No player data has been stolen, and there is believed to be no risk to player privacy. EA has also improved its security since the incident and is now working with law enforcement and other experts as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
“No player data was accessed, and we have no reason to believe there is any risk to player privacy. Following the incident, we’ve already made security improvements and do not expect an impact on our games or our business.
“We are actively working with law enforcement officials and other experts as part of this ongoing criminal investigation.”
The news marks the latest high-profile hack targeting one of the gaming industry’s biggest names.
In February CD Projekt Red were the targets of a ransomware attack, with source code for games allegedly stolen.
In the aftermath of this attack The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 makers said they wouldn’t negotiate with the threat actors.
In 2018, former Nintendo of America employee Marcus Lindblom (and the guy responsible for the English-language script in EarthBound) discovered an old floppy disk which were used during EarthBound’s localisation process. Unfortunately, he had deleted the EarthBound files long ago, so he passed the disk onto the Video Game History Foundation.
Since then, Rich Whitehouse has been able to forensically recover all of the missing data – which includes the entirety of EarthBound’s scripting files.
“In the case of Lindblom’s disk, the only new file he had written after deleting the EarthBound files was a tiny text document, barely a paragraph long. Miraculously, since that new data was so miniscule, we were able to forensically recover all of the deleted EarthBound data, with high confidence that none of the data had been compromised! It appears to be the entirety of EarthBound’s scripting files, in the original scripting language that was likely used by the game’s development team, Ape, in Japan.”
So what exactly has been revealed? In short, these never-before-seen files provide glimpses of unused scenes and text, early gameplay ideas that were scrapped, game details that haven’t been revealed in the past and even comments from the team members that worked on the game – ranging from writers, developers to translators.
What has been rounded up so far “covers maybe 15%” of the total findings, and reveals some fascinating new details about this cult hit release. You can learn more about all the new discoveries over on the Video Game History Foundation Website or get the rundown in the video above.
Tell us in the comments what you think of these long-lost EarthBound secrets.
LONDON (Reuters) – British engineering company Rolls-Royce (OTC:) has put its Norwegian maritime engine unit Bergen back on the block, less than two months after Norway blocked a previous deal for it to be bought by a Russian company.
“The sale process has restarted,” a source close to the matter said on Monday.
Norway in March stopped Rolls-Royce from selling Bergen for 150 million euros to a company controlled by Russia’s TMH Group on national security grounds, in a blow to the British company’s disposal programme.
Rolls-Royce is aiming to raise 2 billion pounds ($ 2.82 billion) from disposals by 2022 as part of plans to repair finances which have been battered by the pandemic, as airlines stopped flying during the pandemic.
The sale of Bergen is now underway at the same time as the sale of Rolls’s Spanish unit ITP Aero, which the company hopes will go for up to 1.5 billion euros.
Rolls-Royce could provide more details of the two sale processes on Thursday when it publishes a trading update ahead of its annual general meeting on the same day.
“We need to celebrate and nurture what makes UT special, and the Longhorn Band is one of those great organizations that shape our campus culture, elevate school spirit and provide amazing opportunities for our students,” UT-Austin President Jay Hartzell said in the release, which also stated that Hartzell approved the plan. “Our multi-million-dollar commitment over the next five years will support the Longhorn Band in restoring — and even going beyond — its former glory, while also providing strong support for our entire portfolio of university bands.”
Both students in the Longhorn Band and the newly created university band will receive $ 1,000 scholarships on top of merit scholarships that will continue to be awarded. Section leaders in all bands will receive a minimum $ 2,500 scholarship. Seniors who wish to opt out of the Longhorn Band next fall before the new university band has started will still receive their merit scholarship.
According to the release, which was first reported by The Daily Texan, the new approach was born out of ongoing financial issues and concerns with “The Eyes of Texas,” which ramped up in earnest last June in the wake of the death of George Floyd, a Black man murdered by a white Minneapolis police officer. Black students and athletes called on the school to stop playing the song, citing that it originally debuted at a campus minstrel show where performers likely wore blackface.
Last July, President Hartzell said the song would remain, but the university would organize a taskforce to study its history. That entity’s report, which was released last month, found the song was not “overtly racist,” but did premiere at a minstrel show where students likely wore blackface and performed skits that perpetuated racist stereotypes of Black people.
Band members had previously refused to play the song at events due to its history and origins. Before the football game against Baylor University in October, the band said it would not perform the alma mater because a survey revealed they did not have “necessary instrumentation” to play the song. At the time, Hartzell said the band was never expected to play the song live at the football game due to COVID-19 precautions.
But emails show UT-Austin administrators had started to assess the band member’s temperature about the controversy in mid-June. Band director Scott Hanna provided an open-ended prompt to gauge members’ feelings of the song in June, according to an email Doug Dempster, dean of the college of fine arts, sent Hartzell.
“Remember, the clock is ticking down to fall ceremonial occasions and/or football games and we’re either going to have to play/sing the Eyes or not,” Dempster wrote to Hartzell.
Those emails also show the song caused internal conflict between administrators in the Butler School of Music.
After athletic officials said football players would not have to stay on the field for the song after games, Mary Ellen Poole, director of the Butler School of Music, told band members that if students did not have to sing the song, “our students deserve the same consideration.” Poole wrote to students that band members would not have to play the song and would not be penalized if they chose to opt out.
“After meeting with student leadership of the Longhorn Band and the Butler School, I can confirm that they as leaders are uncomfortable with continuing to feature ‘The Eyes of Texas’ as a representation of their values,” Poole said. “I encourage each ensemble to decide for itself what its position will be on future performances of the song.”
Dean of the Fine Arts School, Doug Dempster, forwarded that email to Hartzell with an apology.
“Mary Ellen sent this out without advance warning or notice,” Dempster wrote. “Never consulted with me about it. Were you aware of this?Of course, no one has ever imagined ‘penalizing’ students who might refuse to play the Eyes. But this is a clear push from a department chair and a push against your decision as president, Jay. I’m sorry.”
Poole declined to comment Wednesday. Dempster did not respond to email requests for comment or answer questions clarifying how the specific situation was resolved. In October, Dempster said in a statement on the university’s website that no one ever suggested penalizing students who don’t perform the song.
“However, conversations about students electing individually what songs they will and won’t perform have challenged the unity and viability of the Longhorn Band,” he said.
“Longhorn Band students and faculty are in the middle of a university-wide and national reexamination of values and cultural symbols. A range of well-informed convictions on this issue need to be considered respectfully as conscientious and honorable. But given the long-standing traditions and mission of a university spirit band, this disagreement needs to be resolved before the Longhorn Band can return to public performance.”
UT-Austin spokesperson J.B. Bird said the release published Wednesday represents the university’s views and did not answer emailed questions.
UT-Austin has multiple university bands besides the Longhorn Band and the Longhorn Pep Band, which performs at basketball and volleyball games. University bands include concert bands and ensembles. There could be opportunities for the Longhorn Band and the university bands to perform together.
Disclosure: Baylor University and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.