Two American tourists have been found sleeping inside the Eiffel Tower after getting stuck while drunk, according to prosecutors.

The two men were found by security guards in the early hours of Monday.

They paid to scale the Parisian landmark at around 22:40 (21:40 BST) on Sunday and hopped security barriers while climbing down, police said.

They were found in an area normally closed to the public between the tower's second and third levels.

The men "appear to have got stuck because of how drunk they were", Paris prosecutors told the AFP news agency.

A specialist firefighter unit for rescuing people from heights were sent to recover the men, the agency reported.

The usual opening time of 09:00 was delayed due to the discovery of the inebriated pair.

They did not pose any threat, said Sete, the publicly-owned Eiffel Tower operator.

Both men were questioned by police in Paris, while Sete said it would file a criminal complaint.

It comes after two bomb scares at the tower on Saturday forced the monument to be evacuated twice in the same day.

French police have launched an investigation after the false bomb threats were made via posts on a gaming site and a platform for online contact between citizens and police.

The Eiffel Tower, which was built in the 1880s and stands at 984ft (300m), attracted 5.8 million visitors last year.

At the start of this console generation, Microsoft made a surprising decision. Rather than split its consoles between disc and digital-only like Sony, it actually split them between power level. The Xbox Series S was cheaper, but lacked the horsepower of the more expensive Series X. It was meant to be a bridge between generations and a lower cost entry point, but Microsoft made an important promise.

While there would be some variance in technical capabilities between consoles, feature parity between the two would remain the same. It would remain the same because Microsoft would demand it remain the same, from both its own studios and third parties.

However, over time, that has become harder and harder to satisfy. Some developers have grumbled about the Series S requirements for a while, but now, we have a prime example of this parity demand actively hurting the Xbox ecosystem and its own players. Larian has delayed the release of Baldur’s Gate 3, currently on pace to possibly be 2023’s Game of the Year, until they can figure out how to make split-screen work on Series S.

Michael Douse, director of publishing, made the problem very plain:

“We’ve said many times in the past that the issue is getting split-screen working on the Series S, which is taking more time, but is in progress,” Douse said on Twitter. “This is a huge technical hurdle, but we are unable to release the game on the ecosystem without this feature.”

“We cannot remove the split-screen feature because we are obliged to launch with feature parity, and so continue to try and make it work. We have quite a few engineers working very hard to do what no other RPG of this scale has achieved: seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op on Series S. We hope to have an update by the end of the year.”

Microsoft’s demand for feature parity between Series X and S quite literally means that Xbox players may not be able to play 2023’s possible GOTY until…2024. Larian cannot simply cut the feature because Microsoft won’t let them. A feature that the majority of players of the game probably will never even use, mind you.

You can say “okay well, Microsoft just needs to end the feature parity demand between X and S.” In this case, Microsoft could give the okay to cut split-screen and the game could release. And yet, you can see how Microsoft has sort of trapped itself. For Baldur’s Gate 3 that means split-screen, and Xbox owners who are not following video game news every second of the day might find themselves buying a Series S version thinking they can play co-op with their friend and they…can’t.

You can extrapolate that out to any number of games. Various points of pain in Series S development could result in any number of cut features, and those would have to be explained away in fine print for Series S players, or they’d simply buy the games and be upset that those features weren’t there, not knowing any of this.

This is Microsoft not really thinking through the concept of the Series S from the start. The feature parity demand actually does seem necessary, but the further we get into this generation, the more modern games are pushing the technical envelope, and the more Series S is straining to keep up, and developers are straining to meet Microsoft’s demands. As we can see in this example, Microsoft has essentially handed PlayStation a console exclusive for one of the biggest games of the year, without Sony even needing to make any kind of a deal. That’s a disaster.

It's not clear if there’s a way out of this. Stopping the feature parity demand would be a mess. Stopping Series S sales wouldn’t solve the problem with millions out there already that cannot just be abandoned. Time traveling to not release the Series S in the first place to avoid all this is not possible. So, they’re stuck, unless they think of something else.

At the start of this console generation, Microsoft made a surprising decision. Rather than split its consoles between disc and digital-only like Sony, it actually split them between power level. The Xbox Series S was cheaper, but lacked the horsepower of the more expensive Series X. It was meant to be a bridge between generations and a lower cost entry point, but Microsoft made an important promise.

While there would be some variance in technical capabilities between consoles, feature parity between the two would remain the same. It would remain the same because Microsoft would demand it remain the same, from both its own studios and third parties.

However, over time, that has become harder and harder to satisfy. Some developers have grumbled about the Series S requirements for a while, but now, we have a prime example of this parity demand actively hurting the Xbox ecosystem and its own players. Larian has delayed the release of Baldur’s Gate 3, currently on pace to possibly be 2023’s Game of the Year, until they can figure out how to make split-screen work on Series S.

Michael Douse, director of publishing, made the problem very plain:

“We’ve said many times in the past that the issue is getting split-screen working on the Series S, which is taking more time, but is in progress,” Douse said on Twitter. “This is a huge technical hurdle, but we are unable to release the game on the ecosystem without this feature.”

“We cannot remove the split-screen feature because we are obliged to launch with feature parity, and so continue to try and make it work. We have quite a few engineers working very hard to do what no other RPG of this scale has achieved: seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op on Series S. We hope to have an update by the end of the year.”

Microsoft’s demand for feature parity between Series X and S quite literally means that Xbox players may not be able to play 2023’s possible GOTY until…2024. Larian cannot simply cut the feature because Microsoft won’t let them. A feature that the majority of players of the game probably will never even use, mind you.

You can say “okay well, Microsoft just needs to end the feature parity demand between X and S.” In this case, Microsoft could give the okay to cut split-screen and the game could release. And yet, you can see how Microsoft has sort of trapped itself. For Baldur’s Gate 3 that means split-screen, and Xbox owners who are not following video game news every second of the day might find themselves buying a Series S version thinking they can play co-op with their friend and they…can’t.

You can extrapolate that out to any number of games. Various points of pain in Series S development could result in any number of cut features, and those would have to be explained away in fine print for Series S players, or they’d simply buy the games and be upset that those features weren’t there, not knowing any of this.

This is Microsoft not really thinking through the concept of the Series S from the start. The feature parity demand actually does seem necessary, but the further we get into this generation, the more modern games are pushing the technical envelope, and the more Series S is straining to keep up, and developers are straining to meet Microsoft’s demands. As we can see in this example, Microsoft has essentially handed PlayStation a console exclusive for one of the biggest games of the year, without Sony even needing to make any kind of a deal. That’s a disaster.

It's not clear if there’s a way out of this. Stopping the feature parity demand would be a mess. Stopping Series S sales wouldn’t solve the problem with millions out there already that cannot just be abandoned. Time traveling to not release the Series S in the first place to avoid all this is not possible. So, they’re stuck, unless they think of something else.

Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/08/10/prepare-your-firefox-desktop-extension-for-the-upcoming-android-release/

Archived version: https://archive.ph/x9dHq

Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/08/10/prepare-your-firefox-desktop-extension-for-the-upcoming-android-release/

Archived version: https://archive.ph/x9dHq

WipeOut was Sony’s initial first-party exclusive for the original PlayStation when it launched back in 1995. The anti-gravity racing game was phenomenal. Now it’s abandoned. So one dedicated programmer took it upon himself to excavate the game’s leaked source code and make it playable for free in any web browser.

“Either let it be, or shut this thing down and get a real remaster going,” he told Sony...

WipeOut was Sony’s initial first-party exclusive for the original PlayStation when it launched back in 1995. The anti-gravity racing game was phenomenal. Now it’s abandoned. So one dedicated programmer took it upon himself to excavate the game’s leaked source code and make it playable for free in any web browser.

“Either let it be, or shut this thing down and get a real remaster going,” he told Sony...

WipeOut was Sony’s initial first-party exclusive for the original PlayStation when it launched back in 1995. The anti-gravity racing game was phenomenal. Now it’s abandoned. So one dedicated programmer took it upon himself to excavate the game’s leaked source code and make it playable for free in any web browser.

“Either let it be, or shut this thing down and get a real remaster going,” he told Sony...

Relevant privacy part of the article:

The Online Safety Bill is due to pass in the autumn. Aimed at protecting children, it lays down strict rules around policing social media content, with high financial penalties and prison time for individual tech execs if the firms fail to comply.

One clause that has proved particularly controversial is a proposal that encrypted messages, which includes those sent on WhatsApp, can be read and handed over to law enforcement by the platforms they are sent on, if there is deemed to be a national security or child protection risk.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/2Y3u6

It was difficult to maintain a poker face when the leader of a big US tech firm I was chatting to said there was a definite tipping point at which the firm would exit the UK.

I could see my own surprise mirrored on the faces of the other people in the room - many of whom worked there.

They hadn't heard this before either, one told me afterwards.

I can't tell you who it was but it's a brand you would probably recognise.

I've been doing this job for long enough to recognise a petulant tech ego when I meet one. From Big Tech, there's often big talk. But this felt different.

It reflected a sentiment I have been hearing quite loudly of late, from this lucrative and powerful US-based sector.

'Tipping point' Many of these companies are increasingly fed up.

Their "tipping point" is UK regulation - and it's coming at them thick and fast.

The Online Safety Bill is due to pass in the autumn. Aimed at protecting children, it lays down strict rules around policing social media content, with high financial penalties and prison time for individual tech execs if the firms fail to comply.

One clause that has proved particularly controversial is a proposal that encrypted messages, which includes those sent on WhatsApp, can be read and handed over to law enforcement by the platforms they are sent on, if there is deemed to be a national security or child protection risk.

The NSPCC children's charity has described encrypted messaging apps as the "front line" of where child abuse images are shared, but it is also seen as an essential security tool for activists, journalists and politicians.

Currently messaging apps like WhatsApp, Proton and Signal, which offer this encryption, cannot see the content of these messages themselves.

WhatsApp and Signal have both threatened to quit the UK market over this demand.

The Digital Markets Bill is also making its way through Parliament. It proposes that the UK's competition watchdog selects large companies like Amazon and Microsoft, gives them rules to comply with and sets punishments if they don't.

Several firms have told me they feel this gives an unprecedented amount of power to a single body.

Microsoft reacted furiously when the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) chose to block its acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard.

"There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom," raged chief executive Brad Smith. The CMA has since re-opened negotiations with Microsoft.

This is especially damning because the EU is also introducing strict rules in the same vein - but it is collectively a much larger and therefore more valuable market.

In the UK, proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act, which included tech firms getting Home Office approval for new security features before worldwide release, incensed Apple so much that it threatened to remove Facetime and iMessage from the UK if they go through.

Clearly the UK cannot, and should not, be held to ransom by US tech giants. But the services they provide are widely used by millions of people. And rightly or wrongly, there is no UK-based alternative to those services.

Against this backdrop, we have a self-proclaimed pro-tech prime minister, Rishi Sunak. He is trying to entice the lucrative artificial intelligence sector - also largely US-based - to set up camp in the UK. A handful of them - Palantir, OpenAI and Anthropic - have agreed to open London headquarters.

But in California's Silicon Valley, some say that the goodwill is souring.

"There is growing irritation here about the UK and EU trying to rein in Big Tech... that's seen as less about ethical behaviour and more about jealousy and tying down foreign competition," says tech veteran Michael Malone.

British entrepreneur Mustafa Suleyman, the co-founder of DeepMind, has chosen to locate his new company InflectionAI in California, rather than the UK.

It's a difficult line to tread. Big Tech hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with past behaviours - and lots of people feel regulation and accountability is long overdue.

Also, we shouldn't confuse "pro-innovation" with "pro-Big Tech" warns Professor Neil Lawrence, a Cambridge University academic who has previously acted as an advisor to the CMA.

"Pro-innovation regulation is about ensuring that there's space for smaller companies and start-ups to participate in emerging digital markets", he said.

Other experts are concerned that those writing the rules do not understand the rapidly-evolving technology they are trying to harness.

"There are some people in government who've got very deep [tech] knowledge, but just not enough of them," said economist Dame Diane Coyle.

"And so [all] this legislation has been going through Parliament in a manner that seems to technical experts, like some of my colleagues, not particularly well-informed, and putting at risk some of the services that people in this country value very highly."

If UK law-makers don't understand the tech, there are experts willing to advise.

But many of those feel ignored.

Professor Alan Woodward is a cyber-security expert at Surrey University whose has worked various posts at GCHQ, the UK's intelligence, security and cyber agency.

"So many of us have signed letters, given formal evidence to committees, directly offered to advise - either the government doesn't understand or doesn't want to listen," he said.

"Ignorance combined with arrogance is a dangerous mix."

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said that it had "worked hand-in-hand with industry and experts from around the world to develop changes to the tech sector", including during the development of the Online Safety Bill and the Digital Markets Bill.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/2Y3u6

It was difficult to maintain a poker face when the leader of a big US tech firm I was chatting to said there was a definite tipping point at which the firm would exit the UK.

I could see my own surprise mirrored on the faces of the other people in the room - many of whom worked there.

They hadn't heard this before either, one told me afterwards.

I can't tell you who it was but it's a brand you would probably recognise.

I've been doing this job for long enough to recognise a petulant tech ego when I meet one. From Big Tech, there's often big talk. But this felt different.

It reflected a sentiment I have been hearing quite loudly of late, from this lucrative and powerful US-based sector.

'Tipping point' Many of these companies are increasingly fed up.

Their "tipping point" is UK regulation - and it's coming at them thick and fast.

The Online Safety Bill is due to pass in the autumn. Aimed at protecting children, it lays down strict rules around policing social media content, with high financial penalties and prison time for individual tech execs if the firms fail to comply.

One clause that has proved particularly controversial is a proposal that encrypted messages, which includes those sent on WhatsApp, can be read and handed over to law enforcement by the platforms they are sent on, if there is deemed to be a national security or child protection risk.

The NSPCC children's charity has described encrypted messaging apps as the "front line" of where child abuse images are shared, but it is also seen as an essential security tool for activists, journalists and politicians.

Currently messaging apps like WhatsApp, Proton and Signal, which offer this encryption, cannot see the content of these messages themselves.

WhatsApp and Signal have both threatened to quit the UK market over this demand.

The Digital Markets Bill is also making its way through Parliament. It proposes that the UK's competition watchdog selects large companies like Amazon and Microsoft, gives them rules to comply with and sets punishments if they don't.

Several firms have told me they feel this gives an unprecedented amount of power to a single body.

Microsoft reacted furiously when the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) chose to block its acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard.

"There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom," raged chief executive Brad Smith. The CMA has since re-opened negotiations with Microsoft.

This is especially damning because the EU is also introducing strict rules in the same vein - but it is collectively a much larger and therefore more valuable market.

In the UK, proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act, which included tech firms getting Home Office approval for new security features before worldwide release, incensed Apple so much that it threatened to remove Facetime and iMessage from the UK if they go through.

Clearly the UK cannot, and should not, be held to ransom by US tech giants. But the services they provide are widely used by millions of people. And rightly or wrongly, there is no UK-based alternative to those services.

Against this backdrop, we have a self-proclaimed pro-tech prime minister, Rishi Sunak. He is trying to entice the lucrative artificial intelligence sector - also largely US-based - to set up camp in the UK. A handful of them - Palantir, OpenAI and Anthropic - have agreed to open London headquarters.

But in California's Silicon Valley, some say that the goodwill is souring.

"There is growing irritation here about the UK and EU trying to rein in Big Tech... that's seen as less about ethical behaviour and more about jealousy and tying down foreign competition," says tech veteran Michael Malone.

British entrepreneur Mustafa Suleyman, the co-founder of DeepMind, has chosen to locate his new company InflectionAI in California, rather than the UK.

It's a difficult line to tread. Big Tech hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with past behaviours - and lots of people feel regulation and accountability is long overdue.

Also, we shouldn't confuse "pro-innovation" with "pro-Big Tech" warns Professor Neil Lawrence, a Cambridge University academic who has previously acted as an advisor to the CMA.

"Pro-innovation regulation is about ensuring that there's space for smaller companies and start-ups to participate in emerging digital markets", he said.

Other experts are concerned that those writing the rules do not understand the rapidly-evolving technology they are trying to harness.

"There are some people in government who've got very deep [tech] knowledge, but just not enough of them," said economist Dame Diane Coyle.

"And so [all] this legislation has been going through Parliament in a manner that seems to technical experts, like some of my colleagues, not particularly well-informed, and putting at risk some of the services that people in this country value very highly."

If UK law-makers don't understand the tech, there are experts willing to advise.

But many of those feel ignored.

Professor Alan Woodward is a cyber-security expert at Surrey University whose has worked various posts at GCHQ, the UK's intelligence, security and cyber agency.

"So many of us have signed letters, given formal evidence to committees, directly offered to advise - either the government doesn't understand or doesn't want to listen," he said.

"Ignorance combined with arrogance is a dangerous mix."

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said that it had "worked hand-in-hand with industry and experts from around the world to develop changes to the tech sector", including during the development of the Online Safety Bill and the Digital Markets Bill.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/2Y3u6

It was difficult to maintain a poker face when the leader of a big US tech firm I was chatting to said there was a definite tipping point at which the firm would exit the UK.

I could see my own surprise mirrored on the faces of the other people in the room - many of whom worked there.

They hadn't heard this before either, one told me afterwards.

I can't tell you who it was but it's a brand you would probably recognise.

I've been doing this job for long enough to recognise a petulant tech ego when I meet one. From Big Tech, there's often big talk. But this felt different.

It reflected a sentiment I have been hearing quite loudly of late, from this lucrative and powerful US-based sector.

'Tipping point' Many of these companies are increasingly fed up.

Their "tipping point" is UK regulation - and it's coming at them thick and fast.

The Online Safety Bill is due to pass in the autumn. Aimed at protecting children, it lays down strict rules around policing social media content, with high financial penalties and prison time for individual tech execs if the firms fail to comply.

One clause that has proved particularly controversial is a proposal that encrypted messages, which includes those sent on WhatsApp, can be read and handed over to law enforcement by the platforms they are sent on, if there is deemed to be a national security or child protection risk.

The NSPCC children's charity has described encrypted messaging apps as the "front line" of where child abuse images are shared, but it is also seen as an essential security tool for activists, journalists and politicians.

Currently messaging apps like WhatsApp, Proton and Signal, which offer this encryption, cannot see the content of these messages themselves.

WhatsApp and Signal have both threatened to quit the UK market over this demand.

The Digital Markets Bill is also making its way through Parliament. It proposes that the UK's competition watchdog selects large companies like Amazon and Microsoft, gives them rules to comply with and sets punishments if they don't.

Several firms have told me they feel this gives an unprecedented amount of power to a single body.

Microsoft reacted furiously when the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) chose to block its acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard.

"There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom," raged chief executive Brad Smith. The CMA has since re-opened negotiations with Microsoft.

This is especially damning because the EU is also introducing strict rules in the same vein - but it is collectively a much larger and therefore more valuable market.

In the UK, proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act, which included tech firms getting Home Office approval for new security features before worldwide release, incensed Apple so much that it threatened to remove Facetime and iMessage from the UK if they go through.

Clearly the UK cannot, and should not, be held to ransom by US tech giants. But the services they provide are widely used by millions of people. And rightly or wrongly, there is no UK-based alternative to those services.

Against this backdrop, we have a self-proclaimed pro-tech prime minister, Rishi Sunak. He is trying to entice the lucrative artificial intelligence sector - also largely US-based - to set up camp in the UK. A handful of them - Palantir, OpenAI and Anthropic - have agreed to open London headquarters.

But in California's Silicon Valley, some say that the goodwill is souring.

"There is growing irritation here about the UK and EU trying to rein in Big Tech... that's seen as less about ethical behaviour and more about jealousy and tying down foreign competition," says tech veteran Michael Malone.

British entrepreneur Mustafa Suleyman, the co-founder of DeepMind, has chosen to locate his new company InflectionAI in California, rather than the UK.

It's a difficult line to tread. Big Tech hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with past behaviours - and lots of people feel regulation and accountability is long overdue.

Also, we shouldn't confuse "pro-innovation" with "pro-Big Tech" warns Professor Neil Lawrence, a Cambridge University academic who has previously acted as an advisor to the CMA.

"Pro-innovation regulation is about ensuring that there's space for smaller companies and start-ups to participate in emerging digital markets", he said.

Other experts are concerned that those writing the rules do not understand the rapidly-evolving technology they are trying to harness.

"There are some people in government who've got very deep [tech] knowledge, but just not enough of them," said economist Dame Diane Coyle.

"And so [all] this legislation has been going through Parliament in a manner that seems to technical experts, like some of my colleagues, not particularly well-informed, and putting at risk some of the services that people in this country value very highly."

If UK law-makers don't understand the tech, there are experts willing to advise.

But many of those feel ignored.

Professor Alan Woodward is a cyber-security expert at Surrey University whose has worked various posts at GCHQ, the UK's intelligence, security and cyber agency.

"So many of us have signed letters, given formal evidence to committees, directly offered to advise - either the government doesn't understand or doesn't want to listen," he said.

"Ignorance combined with arrogance is a dangerous mix."

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said that it had "worked hand-in-hand with industry and experts from around the world to develop changes to the tech sector", including during the development of the Online Safety Bill and the Digital Markets Bill.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/2Y3u6

It was difficult to maintain a poker face when the leader of a big US tech firm I was chatting to said there was a definite tipping point at which the firm would exit the UK.

I could see my own surprise mirrored on the faces of the other people in the room - many of whom worked there.

They hadn't heard this before either, one told me afterwards.

I can't tell you who it was but it's a brand you would probably recognise.

I've been doing this job for long enough to recognise a petulant tech ego when I meet one. From Big Tech, there's often big talk. But this felt different.

It reflected a sentiment I have been hearing quite loudly of late, from this lucrative and powerful US-based sector.

'Tipping point' Many of these companies are increasingly fed up.

Their "tipping point" is UK regulation - and it's coming at them thick and fast.

The Online Safety Bill is due to pass in the autumn. Aimed at protecting children, it lays down strict rules around policing social media content, with high financial penalties and prison time for individual tech execs if the firms fail to comply.

One clause that has proved particularly controversial is a proposal that encrypted messages, which includes those sent on WhatsApp, can be read and handed over to law enforcement by the platforms they are sent on, if there is deemed to be a national security or child protection risk.

The NSPCC children's charity has described encrypted messaging apps as the "front line" of where child abuse images are shared, but it is also seen as an essential security tool for activists, journalists and politicians.

Currently messaging apps like WhatsApp, Proton and Signal, which offer this encryption, cannot see the content of these messages themselves.

WhatsApp and Signal have both threatened to quit the UK market over this demand.

The Digital Markets Bill is also making its way through Parliament. It proposes that the UK's competition watchdog selects large companies like Amazon and Microsoft, gives them rules to comply with and sets punishments if they don't.

Several firms have told me they feel this gives an unprecedented amount of power to a single body.

Microsoft reacted furiously when the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) chose to block its acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard.

"There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom," raged chief executive Brad Smith. The CMA has since re-opened negotiations with Microsoft.

This is especially damning because the EU is also introducing strict rules in the same vein - but it is collectively a much larger and therefore more valuable market.

In the UK, proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act, which included tech firms getting Home Office approval for new security features before worldwide release, incensed Apple so much that it threatened to remove Facetime and iMessage from the UK if they go through.

Clearly the UK cannot, and should not, be held to ransom by US tech giants. But the services they provide are widely used by millions of people. And rightly or wrongly, there is no UK-based alternative to those services.

Against this backdrop, we have a self-proclaimed pro-tech prime minister, Rishi Sunak. He is trying to entice the lucrative artificial intelligence sector - also largely US-based - to set up camp in the UK. A handful of them - Palantir, OpenAI and Anthropic - have agreed to open London headquarters.

But in California's Silicon Valley, some say that the goodwill is souring.

"There is growing irritation here about the UK and EU trying to rein in Big Tech... that's seen as less about ethical behaviour and more about jealousy and tying down foreign competition," says tech veteran Michael Malone.

British entrepreneur Mustafa Suleyman, the co-founder of DeepMind, has chosen to locate his new company InflectionAI in California, rather than the UK.

It's a difficult line to tread. Big Tech hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with past behaviours - and lots of people feel regulation and accountability is long overdue.

Also, we shouldn't confuse "pro-innovation" with "pro-Big Tech" warns Professor Neil Lawrence, a Cambridge University academic who has previously acted as an advisor to the CMA.

"Pro-innovation regulation is about ensuring that there's space for smaller companies and start-ups to participate in emerging digital markets", he said.

Other experts are concerned that those writing the rules do not understand the rapidly-evolving technology they are trying to harness.

"There are some people in government who've got very deep [tech] knowledge, but just not enough of them," said economist Dame Diane Coyle.

"And so [all] this legislation has been going through Parliament in a manner that seems to technical experts, like some of my colleagues, not particularly well-informed, and putting at risk some of the services that people in this country value very highly."

If UK law-makers don't understand the tech, there are experts willing to advise.

But many of those feel ignored.

Professor Alan Woodward is a cyber-security expert at Surrey University whose has worked various posts at GCHQ, the UK's intelligence, security and cyber agency.

"So many of us have signed letters, given formal evidence to committees, directly offered to advise - either the government doesn't understand or doesn't want to listen," he said.

"Ignorance combined with arrogance is a dangerous mix."

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said that it had "worked hand-in-hand with industry and experts from around the world to develop changes to the tech sector", including during the development of the Online Safety Bill and the Digital Markets Bill.