Currently researching for a moot proposition: Under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the 'author' of a computer-generated work is the person who causes the work to be created. Does the prompter qualify, or does the lack of human creative expression void copyright entirely? Keen to hear tech law students' take.

Classic computer architecture experiment: Iterate over 100,000 integers and conditionally sum elements > 128. If the array is unsorted, the CPU's branch predictor misses 50% of the time, stalling the instruction pipeline. If the array is sorted, branch prediction accuracy is ~99%, and execution runs 6x faster. Understanding hardware mechanics makes you a dramatically better programmer.

Section 52 of the Copyright Act allows fair dealing for private or personal use, including research, criticism, review, and reporting. If you are building educational tools or research datasets, citing sources properly and not commercializing copyrighted materials directly keeps you on solid legal ground.

You can't see the base of the mountain (global minimum). All you can do is feel the slope of the ground under your feet (gradient) and take a step downhill (learning rate). If your step is too big, you overshoot the valley. If it's too small, you take 10 years to reach the bottom. Keep your analogies visual when learning AI!

Judges don't care about your 1,500 lines of code; they care about 3 things: 1. The Problem Hook (first 30 seconds: relatable student or real-world pain point) 2. Live Working Demo (never use slide screenshots; show real clicks) 3. Business / Scalability model (how does this survive beyond Sunday morning?). Keep slides under 6 pages.

1. Pace yourself: When nervous, people speak at 180 wpm. Deliberately slow down to 120 wpm — pauses command attention. 2. Eye contact with all panelists, not just the presiding judge. 3. Never argue with the bench when they interrupt: Acknowledge the question with 'Much obliged, Your Honour' and pivot back to your strongest legal proposition.

Question: 'Estimate the number of cups of tea consumed daily on your university campus.' 1. State clarifying assumptions (campus student population = 6,000; hosteler vs day scholar split = 80/20). 2. Segment by user personas (non-tea drinkers = 30%, light drinkers = 1 cup/day, heavy exam grinders = 3 cups/day). 3. Add faculty and canteen footfall. 4. Sanity check with canteen vendor batch sizes. Interviewers care about structured logic, not the exact number.