I don't see democracy disappearing because of AI. I see it getting attacked by humans who have conscripted AI for that purpose. Specifically, to manufacture deepfake media content that deceives the voting public.

For now I'd rather see democracy as the solution instead of the victim. But it can only be a solution if we defend it.

And AI isn't "claiming" anyone else's work as its own. It's just an algorithm, doing what it was trained to do. I get what you're saying though: it is trained on the content of humans like you, and it's galling to see that content come back in a lightly-derived form without attribution.

I'll see your "WTF" and raise you a *facepalm*. AI already has taken jobs, including customer service (support calls and online chats), writing and editing, and entry-level coding.

It has when the increased production is due to transformative new technologies that can perform a human's job faster and better. Like, oh say, AI.

We don't need to wait 20 years for that. Robots alreay have caused job-loss in industries like manufacturing, for example.

Biden is eligible for a rather generous pension. He served in the Senate from 1973 to 2009, as Vice President for 8 years, and as President for 4 years. So, he's still getting a paycheck. He's just retired and therefore doesn't have to work for it. But he did earn it.

There are people who live off-grid or in remote parts of the world, and who run YouTube channels chronicling their adventures. I daresay they still feel "disconnected" and enjoy it, but see no incongruity sharing their situation with others. And they get some income. They're just dealing with the rest of the world on their own terms.

You had me intrigued, so I did some checking. It's much cheaper fuel-wise to launch into a circumpolar orbit than to launch equatorially and change orbital planes, either at the earth or the moon. So, launching circumpolar wins there.

However, it's much cheaper still to launch equatorially, with the earth's rotation as a boost, and then adjust the arrival plane at the moon during trans-lunar injection. You can even do it during the TLI burn that pushes you out of earth orbit.

So, no need for an earth-circumpolar orbit if your destination is the moon in a circumpolar orbit.

There's only so much that California can contribute to space-launches. The Mojave and Vanderberg ports are there, but they don't have a large ocean to their southeast for potentially ditching into. And you want that if you are going to use the earth's rotation as a boost to get to orbital velocity. Otherwise you need to burn lots more fuel and aim for circumpolar-ish orbits, and that's where the Pacific Ocean comes in handy.

But stay tuned. I'm sure lots of "cool shit" is coming California's way in the spacefaring future. I suspect we're going to start seeing these frickin' space ports everywhere.

Quebec survives living right next to an English-speaking world for the same reason Canada survives living right next to the USA: it protects itself.

In any case, I'm talking about the French language and culture in Canada, not Quebec specifically, although to be sure it's concentrated there.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) determines whether something is Canadian content through a points system, based on the Canadians involved in the production. A work must have at least 6 out of 10 possible points to qualify as Canadian content. Details here.

Music uses a different system called MAPL: Music, Artist, Performance, and Lyrics. If at least two are Canadian, then the music is considered Canadian content. Details here.

I was raised in Ontario, Canada. I now live in the USA.

I too was required to learn French, starting in grade 7. I wish I had started earlier. And we began with Parisian French, not Canadian French, the latter showing up in later years. Since those days, French immersion schools have appeared, offering instruction predominantly but not exclusively in French. I think my French fluency would have been much better if I had attended such a school. I have many younger family-members who attended these schools. It helped them tremendously, and it certainly didn't diminish their fluency in English.

I'm puzzled and amused at your derision of "Canadianized" French, while at the same time defending the Canadian dialect of English. They both are worthy of respect and preservation. Francophones in Canada would take exception to your claim that their language and culture are "dying." And I see it as only a Good Thing for English-speaking Canadians to learn at least a little French in order to get a better understanding of 25% of the people living in the country. That is not a "ridiculously small" part of the country's population.

There was a time long ago when the standard for a language was determined by the way the sovereign of the region spoke. Nowadays, I would say the media has taken over that role. And you certainly could do worse than speak the kind of French spoken on Radio Canada (the French wing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.) I would describe it as français international -- not "Canadianized" French. French-speakers from pretty much anywhere in the world could understand it without much trouble, just as most English speakers can understand English broadcasts from a variety of countries. And the reverse holds: those who learn French in Canada can adjust to French spoken elsewhere in the world with minimal effort. It's misguided to call it a language that "0%" of the world uses.

And as for your claim of "forced adoption" -- I think Baron_Yam below has it right. It's not about forced adoption, it's about protection from a flood of US content that could overwhelm and destroy Canadian culture. We're all free to watch or listen to whatever we want (and good for you, for listening to Canadian bands) but if Canadian content isn't protected, promoted, and preserved, then it could be lost in the sheer magnitude of stuff coming from south of the border.

Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt. -- then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Justin's father) in 1969

Canada shares the longest undefended border in the world with the USA. Laws that protect the cultural identity of Canada are essential to its survival as a nation.

Netflix already produces many good Canadian shows, or shows produced within Canada, that are not "slop."

Doug Ford is 61 years old. He is not an American citizen at the moment.

If he quit the Ontario Premiership, moved to the USA, and became a permanent resident right now (not sure how) he could become a US citizen in 5 years (3 if he married an American.)

After 9 years as a US citizen, he could run for the US Senate. He would be 76 (or 74) years old.

In short, it looks highly unlikely that he could (or even would) run for the US Senate.

Well, no, it isn't obvious. Many branches of physics are not attempting to uncover new fundamental theories of the universe. Instead, they apply existing well-known physical theories to improve understanding of complex system. Climate science and plasma physics are just two examples. There are many more.

Two responses to this: first, if you are probing the regimes where Newtonian Gravitation may not work, then obviously you're not going to use Newtonian Gravitation, except as a comparison to new results to observe the difference. And that is the opposite of what I mentioned, which was: it's perfectly fine to use Newtonian Gravitiation in regimes where it does work.

Second, the issue the OP srussia raised was whether we should abandon the concept of a "particle." I say no, because it continues to be extremely useful, even though there are situations where it is not an appropriate model.

Agreed ... but: that doesn't mean you need to abandon the "old" ways in situations where they still work. You only need to "move on" if a newer theory is easier to use and produces more accurate predictions that the older one. Of if the older theory is discovered to be just plain wrong (i.e., can't make accurate predictions at all.)

Newtonian Gravitation has not been shown to be "just plain wrong" -- it just fails to produce accurate predictions in certain regimes, specifically very strong gravitational fields -- and it's still easier to use that Einstein's General Relativity. There is no reason not to use Newtonian Gravitation if it makes predictions that are accurate enough for your purposes.

No silly wabbit. This is an unmanned mission. 90 days (yes, days) of reconaissance are included in the plan, before a landing is attempted.

You know, it may very well be a cover for a technical problem. But a weather delay that causes you to slip out of a launch window is a tenable argument for not launching until early next year. And tropical-storm-level winds at 45 mph are not just them saying "it's raining."

Yes, really. The moon's orientation with respect to the Sun in its orbit around us is a thing. And it can take months for a launch-window to re-open for their mission. About six, per TFS. (Next February or March.) So not a year.