Canadian laws are written in fairly plain language. This is partly for accessibility purposes, and partly because they must be duplicated in both French and English and mean exactly the same thing.
Where laws and regulations get complicated is when they are referring to other documents. The Canadian Parliament has done a wonderful job creating a user interface for the different iterations of bills, and linking them to video and text of the debates and votes. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
The argument against these programs is that they directed scarce resources toward the students who least need it. The mandate of public schools is to get as many people to a baseline of education.
There are many jurisdictions that can afford to do both, but most are not in that position.
There is far more wasted potential in the case of the hundreds of thousands of kids who fall through the cracks because of a crummy education system. Many states already create an uneven playing field by funding each school system based on the quantum of local taxes collected in their particular communities. Poor kids shouldn't have to further compete for resources within their own, poorly funded institution.
Unless you are measuring the output of people on simple assembly lines, it is very difficult to define "performance".
In a properly functioning team, people perform different, discrete roles which are probably not entirely understood by other team members or management.
No, because the light requires twice the time to travel there then back. If Earth did not move relative to the lens, it would work. Sadly we move, a lot, so what was here 2x ago was something not-earth.
To see earth, the lensing would been to be focused on where Earth was 2x ago. Still possible in theory, and you might even argue just as likely as a fully reflecting curve. But you'd not call it "back towards us". It would need to be "curved to where earth was".
Seems like if you could retrodict the position of past lenses, and predict their effects, perhaps it would somehow be possible to send a spacecraft to a specific location in order to observe Earth's past.
The idea being that a spacecraft traveling at 99% of light speed can't ordinarily catch up with light reflected by Earth. But if the light curves, and the spacecraft can travel directly towards where the light will end up (spacecraft traveling "as the crow flies"), it might be possible to catch up.
Same way I might be able to catch up with Usain Bolt at a track event if he's forced to run on the track, and I'm allowed to run across the turf in the middle.
Would this be the case even if you were moving toward or along-side the 'reflector' (black hole/other body)? For the sake of discussion assume we are at or beyond the focal point.
Technically? But the image would be very very very small, so we'd need a detector bigger than the solar system (guesstimate) to see it. That's to see it: I can't imagine what it would take to resolve the image. The tricks in this paper are a start.
> The first lens is relatively close to the source, with a distance estimated at 10.2 billion light-years. What happens is that the quasar’s light is magnified and multiplied by this massive galaxy. Two of the images are deflected in the opposite direction as they reach the second lens, another massive galaxy. The path of the light is a zig-zag between the quasar, the first lens, and then the second one, which is just 2.3 billion light-years away
So, given a simplistic model with no relative motion between earth and the presumed constant location lens:
Earth formation: 4.54b years ago
2.3b * 2 = 4.6b years ago
10.2b * 2 = 20.4b years ago
Does it matter that our models of the solar systems typically omit that the sun is traveling through the universe (with the planets swirling now coplanarly and trailing behind), and would the relative motion of a black hole at the edge of our solar system change the paths between here and a distant reflector over time?
I believe this could only happen around a black hole. In that case, yes: light that we emitted umpty-million years ago could be shot back at us. The problem is that there would be no focussing. At best it would be like looking at an Earth 2 x umpty-million light years away. I'm guessing that it would actually be worse, with the black hole dispersing light.
(IANAastronomer, but I have opinions on any given topic...)
The problem for them is that you have some of the largest companies on earth creating a very similar product and giving it away for free -- possibly just to prevent OpenAI from developing a profitable business model.
Erm.. no. Kubernetes is OSS, yet very many serious people still pay good money to use hosted and managed K8s anyways because the overhead is too high. Same goes for local models, no one(except hardcore folks) is interested to invest on a beefy GPU or run strange shell command things and suffer laggy subpar response running CPU only models while they can throw some coins at OAI and get all they need.
We need to realize that, the target fir current AI wave is NOT tech folks(claude/mistral/cursor et al. serve that group), but business people who want the “gain in productivity”, “fire the expensive employees and get that pat on the back when margins go high and same work get done by AI and some cheap junior mini team”, “quickly prepare that keynote/email/report for random topic”, “want to learn language X by building a wrapper over API” etc.
I am reminded of the decline of MySpace. It was just thousands of bots posing as users, posting ads on people's pages for e-books, pharmaceuticals etc. The bots remained talking to each other long after the last humans left.
The black box algorithms are the problem.
reply