The science behind brewing tastier non-alcoholic beer
This video is from Tech Now, the BBC's flagship technology programme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
18 minutes ago
- BBC News
'Did the number-nine shirt proud'
We asked for your favourite memories of striker Callum Wilson after he left the club following the conclusion of his are some of your comments:Matt: He was magic on the pitch when Newcastle were hobbling around the bottom end of the table. But the one memory that stands out the most is Wilson responding to an emergency in the crowd when they played Tottenham and almost singlehandedly alerted all medical staff at the ground to it. What a guy. He has done the number-nine shirt Thanks Callum… always put in 100% but just cursed by constant injuries. A great natural goalscorer and definitely appreciated by all fans. Good luck for the future!Peter: Wilson was part of a special group of players who kept us going in the "not so canny" days. He's been fantastic and I wish him all the news notifications for your clubRichard: At the cup final this year when he came on, I remember thinking: "Good move. Experienced and steady - he won't do anything silly." Straight away he took the ball right into the Liverpool corner and let them kick him for 30 seconds before letting it out for a throw. Not the most spectacular, but it was exactly what we needed. We'd have been in the Championship again if it wasn't for his goals before Alexander Isak came Generally just his robust, yet composed, style of play was always nice to watch. I wish there were more strikers like What a servant to the club. He alluded to it in his message, but there really were some lows! To have such a quality player during those times was a rare spark of joy. I'm sure I can confidently say that the Toon army wishes Wilson the best of luck with whatever he chooses to do moving forward. Burnley and Leeds wouldn't go far wrong by looking to add Wilson to their line-ups for next season!
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Slice of late Queen's 77-year-old wedding cake sells for £2,700 ... and buyer's going to eat it
One of the last slices of the late Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip's wedding cake has sold for £2,700 after languishing in a drawer for decades. The piece of perfectly preserved fruit cake from the 1947 celebration was bought by a royal fan who intends to eat it. The 77-year-old slice of alcohol-laced cake was one of 2,000 from the wedding reception at Buckingham Palace. The lavish cake, designed by the chief confectioner at McVitie & Price, stood at a 9ft tall and consisted of four tiers. The 4in slice was given to Chief Petty Officer F Lownes, who served in the Royal Navy. He never ate the cake and it was left to his son, who kept it in a drawer. After he died, it went to his wife, Lownes' daughter-in-law. The slice has been kept in its original box with a silver embossed crown 'EP' cypher and date on the lid. Alongside it was the original paper packaging addressed to Lownes and stamped with the words 'On His Majesty's Service', in reference to the father of the bride, King George VI. The slice was bought by Gerry Layton, 64, a royal fan and entrepreneur, who competed against international interest to buy it. He intends to eat about a third of it at a replica state banquet he hopes to hold on the Royal Yacht Britannia to mark his 65th birthday next year. He said he would have the cake flambéed in rum before he eats it. Mr Layton, who also owns a piece of Charles and Diana's wedding cake, said: 'I will have a third of it cut off and flambéed in rum so that any bacteria will be killed off. 'But if anything happens to me, then at least I will be going out in style on Britannia.' The slice was sold by Reeman Dansie Auctioneers of Colchester, Essex, for a hammer price of £2,000, but with fees added on the overall price was £2,700.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Bring back human line judges, Wimbledon
Wimbledon may seem the last place to act as a backdrop to science fiction. But the fact is in the home of strawberries, cream and Sir David Beckham on the front row of the Royal Box we are seeing unfold this fortnight a narrative that might well serve as the starting point for the next iteration of the Terminator franchise. On the crisp lawns of the All England Club we are in the midst of a battle between humanity and the computer. In SW19 there is a growing rage against the machines. This year it was decided to dispense with line judges. The problem, we were told, is they made mistakes. And computers apparently don't. So never mind that, in their smart Ralph Lauren blazers, the lovely old humans add to the colour of the event, never mind that part of the fun is seeing them swerve at the last moment to avoid a 130mph Jannik Sinner serve, they were to be replaced by something called Electronic Line Calling. Error was to be removed. Everything was to become unequivocal. Trust the machine, we were told, and it will get it right. The pursuit of perfection in adjudication has been an ambition of Wimbledon's ever since John McEnroe erupted on No 1 Court back in 1981. McEnroe's beef that day was simple: his eyesight was better than the umpire's. He could see his shot was on the line, even as it was called out. 'You cannot be serious,' he whined, delivering the comment that will doubtless serve as his epitaph. This was human error exposed: a wrong call horribly skewing the course of the match. Then, in 2007, it seemed such disputes were behind us. Hawk-Eye was introduced, a piece of camera technology used in cricket that tracked the ball and could decide on its trajectory. Players were entitled to challenge a line judge's call and Hawk-Eye would act as the court of appeal. The process became part of the fun, the crowd clapping as the animation was played on the court's scoreboard, cooing in delight at its analysis. And this hybrid system served to everyone's satisfaction. It was reckoned essentially foolproof. Research has estimated that human line judges get around eight per cent of calls wrong. As my colleague Simon Briggs wrote at the weekend, if humans are around 92 per cent accurate, and robots 98 per cent accurate, then both should be 99.84 per cent accurate. That, however, was not deemed enough for the Wimbledon authorities. They decided to go entirely robot. Get rid of the human bit and argument would be redundant. There was just one problem: what if the robots weren't as good as we assumed? What if the disembodied AI voices were too quiet to be properly heard? What if the machines got it wrong? Across all the courts this year, we have seen players stand looking bemused at calls, if not channelling their inner McEnroe then at least wondering why, given their eyesight is generally magnificent, they cannot believe what they are seeing. Time and again, we have seen mechanical calls that have just looked wrong, just ask Jack Draper and Emma Raducanu. Less Artificial Intelligence more Artificial Myopia. And if they are in doubt, the players have no recourse. There is no challenge system. Instead on the scoreboard will come up a Hawk-Eye animation of a 'close call'. But given the Hawk-Eye and the computer are working from the same data, the result is always the same. 'It's kind of disappointing,' said Raducanu earlier this week, 'that the calls can be so wrong.' The nadir came when the new British hope Sonay Kartal was playing Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova on Sunday on Centre Court. A Kartal shot landed so far beyond the line it was practically in Clapham. Pavlyuchenko, seeing it clearly fall in the wrong place, returned before looking to the umpire to intervene. But no disembodied call came from the machines. And the umpire, apparently now required always to follow what AI instructs, did not intervene, rule it was out and give the point to the Russian. Instead, to much bemusement all round, he stopped play, eventually ruling the point be played again. This time, Kartal won it. As it happened, the overall result was not affected: Pavyluchenko won the match. But that could have been the moment technology completely altered destiny. And it simply would not have happened under the old system. A line judge would have had to be singularly incompetent not to have seen what happened. With a magnificent irony, the Wimbledon authorities later blamed 'human error' for the mistake. Apparently the machinery had been inappropriately switched off. But that is not the point. If you rely on machines instead of humanity, if you surrender to 'Skynet' as they did in the days of Terminator, you are inevitably prone to malfunction. Besides, the fact is, human error is an integral part of sport. Jeopardy is a central tenet to our enjoyment. Part of the attraction of Rory McIlroy is because he fluffs his chances. Centre Court is in a growing love affair with Carlos Alcaraz partly because he makes mistakes. He is human, not a machine. Just as VAR is sucking the joy from football in the vain attempt to eliminate error, what is happening across Wimbledon right now is final proof that technology is no saviour. Let's hope this fortnight marks the end of the experiment and next year we see the line judges properly restored to their position, crouching behind the baseline. Because the result from Wimbledon is clear: Humans 1 Machines 0.
