Photo Credit: Zeke Rowe/British Ecological Society
While most animals avoid approaching crocodiles, the biting fly boldly lands on this intimidating predator to drink its blood. Captured by Zeke Lowe, this striking image showcases nature’s interactions at Panama’s Coiba National Park, recognized as the top entry in the British Ecological Society’s annual photo contest.
According to Lowe, a doctoral candidate at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, “This crocodile was hiding in a tidal marsh off the coast. I got as close as possible, kept low, and waited for that direct eye contact.”
Cape Sparrows Alarmed by Lioness
Photo Credit: Willem Kruger/British Ecological Society
This captivating photograph by Willem Kruger, a South African photographer, won in the Interaction category. It was taken during the dry season in Kalahari Border Park, where a pride of lions startled a flock of birds drinking at a waterhole.
Wallace’s Flying Frog
Photo Credit: Jamal Kabir/British Ecological Society
Jamal Kabir won the animal category at the University of Nottingham for his captivating image of Wallace’s Flying Frog (Lacophorus nigroparmatus), named after renowned biologist Alfred Russell Wallace. These amphibians, found in Southeast Asia, utilize their webbed feet to glide gracefully between trees in the lush rainforests.
Bighorn Sheep Health Test
Photo Credit: Peter Hudson/British Ecological Society
In this striking image, a bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) is captured having its nose swabbed. Peter Hudson, a photographer and biologist at Penn State University, was highly commended for his work related to behavioral ecology. This study addresses pneumonia outbreaks in bighorn herds, a significant concern impacting newborns in the spring.
Fly Resting on Mushroom
Photo Credit: Francisco Gamboa/British Ecological Society
This stunning image, taken by wildlife photographer Francisco Gamboa, won accolades in the Plants and Fungi category. The photograph shows a fly resting delicately on a mushroom in Chile’s Altos de Cantillana Nature Reserve.
Intertidal Zone Education
Photo Credit: Liam Brennan/British Ecological Society
In a notable educational initiative, wildlife researcher Liam Brennan captured this image of students conducting beach trawls to monitor coastal fish population changes in New Brunswick, Canada, further emphasizing the importance of ecological education.
Insect and Ecosystem Exploration Safari: Sri Lanka
Embark on a unique entomology and ecology-focused expedition to explore Sri Lanka’s rich biodiversity.
An artificial intelligence company based in London has achieved a significant victory in a High Court case that scrutinized the legality of an AI model using extensive copyrighted data without authorization.
Stability AI, led by Oscar-winning Avatar director James Cameron, successfully defended itself against allegations from Getty Images, claiming that it infringed on the international photography agency’s copyright.
This ruling is seen as a setback for copyright holders’ exclusive rights to benefit from their creations. Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, cautioned that it suggests “the UK derivative copyright system is inadequate to protect creators”.
There was evidence indicating that Getty Images were utilized in training Stability’s model, which enables users to generate images via text prompts. In certain instances, Stability was also found to violate Getty’s trademarks.
Judge Joanna Smith remarked that determining the balance between the interests of the creative industries and AI sectors holds “real social significance.” However, she could only address relatively limited claims as Getty had to withdraw parts of its case during the trial this summer.
Getty Images initiated legal action against Stability AI for violations of its intellectual property rights, claiming the AI company scraped and replicated millions of images with “complete indifference to the content of the training data.”
This ruling comes amid ongoing debates about how the Labour government should legislate on copyright and AI matters, with artists and authors like Elton John, Kate Bush, Dua Lipa, and Kazuo Ishiguro advocating for protections. In contrast, tech firms are seeking broader access to copyrighted material to develop more powerful generative AI systems.
The government is conducting a consultation regarding copyright and AI, stating: “The uncertainty surrounding the copyright framework is hindering the growth of both the AI and creative sectors. This situation must not persist.”
Lawyers at Mishcon de Reya, pursuing this matter, are contemplating introducing a “text and data mining exception” to the UK copyright law, which would enable copyrighted works to be utilized for training AI models unless rights holders opt-out.
Due to a lack of evidence indicating that the training took place in the UK, Getty was compelled to retract its original copyright claim. Nevertheless, the company proceeded with its lawsuit, asserting that Stability continues to use copies of visual assets, which it describes as the “lifeblood” of its business. The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement and “spoofing,” as some generated images bore Getty’s watermark.
Highlighting the complexities of AI copyright litigation, the group essentially argued that Stability’s image generation model, known as Stable Diffusion, constitutes an infringing copy, as its creation would represent copyright infringement if produced in the UK.
The judge determined that “AI models like Stable Diffusion that do not (and never have) stored or reproduced copyrighted works are not ‘infringing copies.'” She declined to adjudicate on the misrepresentation claims but ruled in favor of some of Getty’s trademark infringement claims regarding the watermark.
In a statement, Getty Images remarked: “We are profoundly worried that even well-resourced organizations like Getty Images face considerable challenges in safeguarding creative works due to the absence of transparency requirements. We have invested millions with one provider alone, but we must continue our pursuit elsewhere.”
“We urge governments, including the UK, to establish more robust transparency regulations. This is crucial to avoid expensive legal disputes and ensure creators can uphold their rights.”
Stability AI’s General Counsel, Christian Dowell, stated, “We are pleased with the court’s ruling on the remaining claims in this case. Although Getty’s decision to voluntarily withdraw most of the copyright claims at the trial’s conclusion left the court with only a fraction of the claims, this final decision addresses the core copyright issues. We appreciate the time and effort the court has dedicated to resolving the significant matters in this case.”
AIs are improving at solving mathematics challenges
Andresr/ Getty Images
AI models developed by Google DeepMind and OpenAI have achieved exceptional performance at the International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO).
While companies herald this as a significant advancement for AIs that might one day tackle complex scientific or mathematical challenges, mathematicians urge caution, as the specifics of the models and their methodologies remain confidential.
The IMO is one of the most respected contests for young mathematicians, often viewed by AI researchers as a critical test of mathematical reasoning, an area where AI traditionally struggles.
Following last year’s competition in Bath, UK, Google investigated how its AI systems, Alpha Proof and Alpha Jometry, achieved silver-level performance, though their submissions were not evaluated by the official competition judges.
Various companies, including Google, Huawei, and TikTok’s parent company, approached the IMO organizers requesting formal evaluation of their AI models during this year’s contest, as stated by Gregor Drinner, the President of IMO. The IMO consented, stipulating that results should be revealed only after the full closing ceremony on July 28th.
OpenAI also expressed interest in participating in the competition but did not respond or register upon being informed of the official procedures, according to Dolinar.
On July 19th, OpenAI announced the development of a new AI that achieved a gold medal score alongside three former IMO medalists, separately from the official competition. OpenAI stated the AI correctly answered five out of six questions within the same 4.5-hour time limit as human competitors.
Two days later, Google DeepMind revealed that its AI system, Gemini Deep Think, had also achieved gold-level performance within the same constraints. Dolinar confirmed that this result was validated by the official IMO judges.
Unlike Google’s Alpha Proof and Alpha Jometry, which were designed for competition, Gemini Deep Think was specifically crafted to tackle questions posed in a programming language used by both Google and OpenAI.
Utilizing LEAN, the AI was capable of quickly verifying correctness, although the output is challenging for non-experts to interpret. Thang Luong from Google indicated that a natural language approach can yield more comprehensible results while remaining applicable to broadly useful AI frameworks.
Luong noted that advancements in reinforcement learning—a training technique designed to guide AI through success and failure—have enabled large language models to validate solutions efficiently, a method essential to Google’s earlier achievements with gameplay AIs, such as AlphaZero.
Google’s model employs a technique known as parallel thinking, considering multiple solutions simultaneously. The training data comprises mathematical problems particularly relevant to the IMO.
OpenAI has disclosed few specifics regarding their system, only mentioning that it incorporates augmented learning and “experimental research methods.”
“While progress appears promising, it lacks rigorous scientific validation, making it difficult to assess at this point,” remarked Terence Tao from UCLA. “We anticipate that the participating companies will publish papers featuring more comprehensive data, allowing others to access the model and replicate its findings. However, for now, we must rely on the companies’ claims regarding their results.”
Geordy Williamson from the University of Sydney shared this sentiment, stating, “It’s remarkable to see advancements in this area, yet it’s frustrating how little in-depth information is available from inside these companies.”
Natural language systems might be beneficial for individuals without a mathematical background, but they also risk presenting complications if models produce lengthy proofs that are hard to verify, warned Joseph Myers, a co-organizer of this year’s IMO. “If AIs generate solutions to significant unsolved questions that seem plausible yet contain subtle, critical errors, we must be cautious before putting confidence in lengthy AI outputs.”
The companies plan to initially provide these systems for testing by mathematicians in the forthcoming months before making broader public releases. The models claim they could potentially offer rapid solutions for challenging problems in scientific research, as stated by June Hyuk Jeong from Google, who contributed to Gemini Deep Think. “There are numerous unresolved challenges within reach,” he noted.
If Chinese automakers can be believed, there’s a significant love for karaoke among the populace. Some enthusiasts are so passionate that they want karaoke features integrated into their family vehicles.
Arno Antlitz, Volkswagen’s CFO, expressed that this was something that would have baffled the European mindset just a few years back. Nevertheless, the innovations found in electric vehicles from Chinese brands like BYD and XPENG are illustrative of the lessons Volkswagen and its European counterparts have had to absorb as they strive to catch up with their Chinese rivals in the global electric vehicle arena.
“No one in Wolfsburg thinks karaoke is necessary in a car,” Antlitz remarked during a Financial Times meeting last week. “Yet, you need it.”
XPENG G6 family SUV undergoing testing in London. Photo: Jasper Jolly/The Guardian
A decade ago, such openness from the world’s second-largest automaker would have been surprising. Little advocacy existed for Chinese brands in Europe, where the automotive industry was largely dominated by long-established manufacturers from Germany, France, the UK, and Japan, as well as South Korea. The rise of battery technology, however, paved the way for Chinese manufacturers, bolstered by substantial state subsidies, to aim for dominance in the burgeoning electric vehicle sector.
They seized this opportunity. Data from EV analyst Matthias Schmidt shows that in early 2024, Chinese brands gained over 10% of European EV sales, though that figure slid back to 7.7% by February. Yet, the scale of the Chinese domestic market is unmatched, with 12.8 million battery and hybrid cars sold in China by 2024, exceeding the entire European auto market.
The swift advancements from China have caught competitors off guard, especially following a technological leap during the pandemic. Bentley’s Frank Stephen Walliser described the innovations unveiled at the 2023 Shanghai Motor Show as a “shock that comes after a period of silence.”
Chinese manufacturers are increasingly vying for a future where vehicles are seamlessly integrated into users’ digital lives and predominantly self-driving. While Tesla remains a leader among Western automakers, China’s BYD is close behind, with CEO Elon Musk reportedly more focused on supporting Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions than on automotive innovation. Despite backing health measures, Trump’s policies are projected to significantly hinder American manufacturers.
Chris McNally, an analyst from Evercore ISI, noted in a report after attending the Shanghai show that experiences like handling driving tasks while enjoying massage seats in an Aito M8 Luxury SUV and watching films on a retractable projector screen showcase the innovation at a fraction of the price of Western luxury vehicles.
According to McNally, the global market share held by major automakers in Detroit, Germany, and Japan has dropped from 74% to 60% over the past five years. “If you’re a US/EU manufacturer not planning to offer affordable, scalable EVs in the next five years, you could face serious challenges by the 2030s,” he warned.
He further questioned whether the fight is lost for Western makers, suggesting they may make a strong comeback during this phase of automotive evolution.
Shanghai Motor Show in April. Photo: Go to Nakamura/Reuters
BYD’s Seagull, priced around £6,000 in China, showcases autonomous technology comparable to much costlier vehicles, branded as “God’s Eye.” This pricing was achieved using heavier sodium-ion batteries, which compromise range for affordability, yet it highlights a challenge that European manufacturers face.
A consulting firm Bain & Company evaluated that Chinese automakers, on average, can develop cars at just 27% of the cost of European counterparts.
This isn’t just about undercutting prices. Last week, during a test run organized by the British lobby group for automakers and traders, BYD’s £33,300 Seal U DM-I, a plug-in hybrid family SUV, went head-to-head with Volkswagen’s plug-in hybrid Tiguan, which can cost upwards of £10,000 more.
Participating state-owned automakers included Omoda and Jaecoo Brands alongside Leapmotor, Geely (which owns Volvo, Polestar, and Smart Brands), and Xpeng. During a week of trials, the Guardian discovered an abundance of driver assistance features and a spacious interior rivaling that of the Tesla Model Y.
All these vehicles are priced competitively with minimal distinction from European offerings. They provide a smooth ride and impressive voice assistance, allowing drivers to open the sunroof without diverting their attention from the road. A standout from the trials was the swift MG Cyberstar Electric Sports car manufactured by state-owned SAIC.
There are indications of resistance from Europe. Priced at £23,000, the Renault 5 has rapidly gained traction as one of the first affordable electric vehicles manufactured in Europe. While Renault is working diligently to lower production costs, its profitability remains uncertain, though the model has garnered significant popularity.
The French carmaker is also aiming to cut the sales timeline from three years to two, with assistance from an unnamed Chinese partner, for its upcoming models like the Renault 4 and the next Twingo.
If coexistence isn’t feasible, joining forces seems to be a favored strategy among Europeans. Volkswagen has invested in XPENG (also known as Xiaopeng), while Stellantis is planning to introduce jumping cars in Europe and utilize that technology. Additionally, Scandinavian brands such as Volvo and Polestar are increasingly reliant on technology from their parent company, China’s Geely.
UK’s JLR is collaborating with Chery to produce more affordable vehicles under the revived Land Rover Freelander name. According to JLR CEO Adrian Mardell, the vehicle set to launch in the latter half of 2026 “could be global.” Nissan’s Ivan Espinosa hinted that Japanese manufacturers could assemble Chinese cars in Sunderland, northeastern England, to fill excess capacity.
Shunning Chinese technology is not an option for many firms, even if they desire to do so. Most batteries are produced in China, with a few competitors from Japan and Korea. Europe’s battery champion, Northvolt, has faced setbacks. In the meantime, BYD announced in March that its new battery could offer a 250-mile range with just a five-minute charge, causing CATL shares to surge 16% during its market debut in Hong Kong.
Europe possesses certain defensive advantages, including a vast network of dealerships (still preferred by consumers for purchasing) and maintenance garages, which slow the progress of Chinese brands.
“European consumers tend to be quite conservative and very brand loyal,” remarked Eric Zeyer, head of Bain & Company’s European automotive division. “It’s exceedingly challenging for Chinese manufacturers to break into Europe and replicate their domestic success.”
He warned that without strategic moves, Chinese brands risk disappearing from the market, similar to the fate of US electric brand Fisker.
Despite the prevalent challenges, European automotive leaders assert the game isn’t lost, even as it’s evident that China is set to capture a significant share of the global automotive market.
Bentley’s Walliser noted that “Chinese manufacturers are more agile and quicker to adapt,” while also embracing new technologies. “This isn’t magic,” he stated. “It can be achieved here too.”
“Don’t underestimate the resilience of automotive companies,” added Luca de Meo, CEO of Renault.
Weeks after a federal appellate court mandated that Apple loosen the reins of CEO Tim Cook, his senior associate deliberated on the next steps.
For over ten years, Apple has insisted that apps utilize the App Store payment system, collecting a 30% commission on sales. However, in 2023, the court ruled that apps could bypass Apple’s payment system and allow users to purchase directly. Cook sought clarity on whether Apple could still impose fees on these sales without breaching the court’s directive.
Phil Schiller, responsible for overseeing the App Store, expressed concerns that the revised fees might be unlawful. He supported direct online sales without Apple’s commission. Luca Maestri, the company’s financial head, disagreed, advocating for a 27% commission to safeguard the business.
Ultimately, Cook sided with Maestri, attempting to rationalize this decision. A federal judge criticized the company in a recent ruling, accusing it of fabricating independent economic research to validate its choices and withholding thousands of documents under claims of attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, at least one executive allegedly misled the court.
The judge’s ruling, alongside witness testimonies this year and company documents disclosed Thursday, highlights the extreme measures Apple has taken to maintain every cent accrued from the App Store. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the initial lawsuit from Epic Games in 2020, could inadvertently impact Apple’s operations and hurt its credibility as scrutiny around the business intensifies.
Additionally, the company faces multiple legal challenges, including an antitrust lawsuit from the Department of Justice, which accuses it of maintaining a monopoly with its iPhone. Class Action Lawsuits from U.S. app developers and regulatory scrutiny from the U.K., Spain, and potentially China.
Mark A. Remley, a professor at Stanford Law, noted, “If you lose credibility with the court, the next judge may be less forgiving.” This situation could prompt future judges to suspect dishonesty during Apple’s subsequent cases.
Google’s corporate dealings have similarly cast a shadow over its legal processes. A recent judge noted in an antitrust case regarding Google’s advertising technology, the company’s attempts to obscure communications raised concerns about its adherence to court mandates.
In response to Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ ruling, Apple plans to appeal, asserting that the findings were “unjust” and deeming delays to the court order necessary. The company declined to provide further comments on this report.
In 2020, Epic, the creator of Fortnite, filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging antitrust violations related to the mandated use of the App Store payment system. Although Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled in Apple’s favor, asserting it wasn’t a monopoly, she highlighted that Apple breached California competition laws by requiring developers to use the App Store for software and services.
To comply with the court’s orders, Apple initiated a project termed “Wisconsin.” Two solutions were explored: one that would allow apps to include links for online purchases at designated locations without fees, and another that would require the app to charge a 27% commission for providing those links.
Without commissions and fees, Apple estimated potential losses totaling hundreds of millions, even exceeding a billion dollars. Opting for the 27% fee would minimize their losses.
In a June 2023 meeting, Cook evaluated commission options ranging from 20–27%. He reviewed analyses indicating that with a 27% commission, Apple could potentially lose its payment system while ultimately endorsing a plan that limited where app links for online purchases could be placed.
Consequently, Apple enlisted an economic consultancy to author reports to substantiate these fees, concluding that its developer tools and distribution services exceed 30% of an app’s revenue.
Apple also instituted a warning screen for online purchases. Cook instructed the team to enhance the warning to emphasize Apple’s commitment to privacy and security. “Rather than terminating their relationship with Apple, the company cannot be held accountable for the privacy or security of transactions made online,” he stated.
After introducing the 27% commission in January 2024, Epic brought Apple back to court, arguing it was not complying with the judge’s orders. Judge Gonzalez Rogers summoned both Apple and Epic to court, where Treasury VP Alex Roman testified that the commission had been finalized on January 16, 2024. Executives revealed that the consultancy report influenced the commission fee setting.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed skepticism about Apple’s honesty and demanded documentation regarding their compliance. Apple submitted 89,000 documents, a third of which were marked confidential. The court dismissed these claims as “baseless,” stating Apple pressured them into concealing more than half the documents.
The findings indicated that Rome lied under oath, that the consultancy report was “deceptive,” and that Apple “willfully” ignored the court’s directives, as termed by Judge Gonzalez Rogers. She characterized this as “concealment.”
Her ruling may empower prosecutors, regulators, and judges in similar ongoing cases against Apple across the globe, according to various antitrust professors and lawyers.
When the company attempts to edit or conceal documents, it may draw the attention of prosecutors and judges to strategize against such “tactics to delay litigation,” especially in the Epic Games case. During testimonies, the credibility of Apple executives was called into question as it became apparent the company “conceals the truth.”
In other cases regarding Apple, such as the Department of Justice antitrust lawsuits, Colin Kass, an antitrust attorney for Proskauer Rose, indicated that the process will begin with a firm statement against Apple’s past tactics. “I won’t entertain any games they’ve played before,” he stated.
The company remains cautious regarding both the Justice Department’s lawsuit and its defense, noted Vanderbilt University law professor Rebecca Ho Allensworth, who studies antitrust. Apple previously claimed that green bubbles in messages from Android users were due to safety concerns. However, she suggested such claims may now be viewed skeptically following the recent ruling.
Allensworth remarked that the judges’ opinions could influence App Store practices, leading to enforced resolutions akin to those from the European Union, the U.K., and Spain—to guarantee regulatory and court confidence.
“Apple behaves as though it operates above the law,” she asserted. “This sends a clear message that such behavior is unacceptable.”
When the Minneapolis City Council announced agreements with Uber and Lyft last month to increase wages and enhance working conditions for drivers, who emerged as the winner?
On May 20, the city council revealed a compromise with ride-hailing companies: Uber and Lyft would adhere to an inflation-linked minimum wage aligning with Minnesota’s $15 hourly minimum wage post expenses. Although some lawmakers touted this as a 20% pay surge for drivers, the agreed rate was lower, surpassing nearly all proposals from the previous two years amidst a contentious battle involving Uber, Lyft, drivers, and lawmakers.
Key elements of the deal include the allowance for drivers to contest firings due to opaque algorithms, funding for a non-profit driver center for driver rights education, and a raised insurance coverage requirement to $1 million for ride-hailing drivers to address post-trip medical expenses and lost wages following an assault or accident.
However, since the deal remains a vital component of digital ride-hailing services, Uber and Lyft can sustain operations and potentially reverse the compromise in the future.
Over the course of two years, ride-hailing driver groups engaged in protests, advocacy efforts, and negotiations with Uber as the companies threatened capital strikes and announced withdrawal from the state multiple times due to the bill, causing political strife for both entities.
By resorting to capital strikes, these companies narrow the scope of our political discourse while bolstering their own influence. The digital ride-hailing model perpetuates worsened working conditions for drivers through misclassification and algorithmic control, and the Minneapolis deal fails to address data transparency, constituting a significant setback according to expert Veena Duvall from the University of California, Irvine.
While the deal provides instant benefits for drivers by averting Uber and Lyft’s potential exit from the state, it falls short of addressing fundamental structural challenges within the on-demand labor model.
The on-demand labor model relies on maintaining an asymmetric power balance between companies, passengers, drivers, and cities, sidestepping issues of misclassification, data extraction, and algorithmic control.
Uber and Lyft exhibit adeptness in reducing arguments to superficial levels, deterring meaningful change and reform within the industry. Despite the evident need for intervention to improve drivers’ conditions, the omnipresent influence and evasion of billions in taxes by such companies underscore the challenge of enacting lasting reform.
Ultimately, the digital ride-hailing model remains fundamentally flawed, necessitating a comprehensive reevaluation of its impact on urban transport, working conditions, and financial practices, urging a departure from the prevailing exploitative dynamics in favor of sustainable alternatives.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
