I'm not really surprised, since the videos are not monetized. Youtube has to pay content creators so if they inflate viewership, it costs them money. On Facebook, it allows them to show striking numbers, gain publicity, and try and leverage their platform.
Why would they release the 8 next year? In recent years, they've do iPhone #S on the alternating years where they keep the same basic design but improve the internals a bit. I think you'll probably have to wait another year for the 8.
The problem that I see is that good commentary creates the narrative of the game. Sports has not actual intrinsic stakes for most fans (short of a few bets here and there), but the commentators and news sources allow for us to be fed a narrative of how much the underdogs have overcome by strength of will to make it this point, etc etc. I question the current AI's ability to do this coherently and not just report who won and what happened. Because in general, that's rather uninteresting.
Of course not, but I'm saying if your login account is Jon.Doe1975@gmail.com with an IP in Generic Small Town, Kentucky. There's a good chance the account owner is most likely the 40 something year old guy named John Doe that lives in that town. That doesn't mean the person using it was that person, but generally that is the case. Not something that holds up in court, but is useful for social engineering.
I would say the IP address along with the other information provided (Since usernames, emails, and passwords can contain very important information like DOB, Nickname, and name) helps you narrow down to a specific person. Just an IP cannot really tell you a user, but an IP with other information can.
There are services that build to of the line PCs with the latest and greatest in them - but you'll pay a premium. Sourcing your own components and coming up with a build that fits your needs is where you save money. You either do labor and pay less or pay more for convenience. The basics of economics there.
Tom Randall, reporting for Bloomberg Technology:An experimental cancer treatment that alters the DNA of patients has won a key approval to proceed with its first human tests using the controversial gene-altering tool known as Crispr. Scientists from the University of Pennsylvania want to edit the immune systems of 18 patients to target cancer cells more effectively. The experiment, backed by internet billionaire Sean Parker, won approval from the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), a federal ethics panel set up at the National Institutes of Health 40 years ago to review controversial experiments that change the human genome. The trial still needs final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The experiment targets difficult-to-treat cases of multiple myeloma, sarcoma, and melanoma. The scientists will remove blood samples from patients and alter their T-cells -- central to human immune response -- to more effectively target and pursue cancer. The T cells will then be infused back into patients and studied for the safety and effectiveness of the technique.STAT News has an article in which it discusses the probable consequences of altering the DNA of a cancer patient.