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.

Then he unilaterally breaks the deal, applies illegal tariffs on Canadian goods

That's the real problem. The US can't sign any binding agreements. Even if their congress ratifies them, which is a big if, they have enough emergency executive powers that any random president can just decide they'd rather not abide by them.

Even if the demands hadn't been ridiculous, it's insane to sign any kind of agreement that results in lasting changes when the other side can just change their mind any time they want. That goes for trade, defence, nuclear non-proliferation. The US is going to find out that their perfidy has very high costs for everyone.

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.

Mid level becomes entry level. Of course entry level jobs are going to be the ones replaced first. They always are.

https://www.esa.int/Applicatio...

If only the world's knowledge could be at your fingertips.

This is the first time, the planet got heated up by human caused CO2 emissions.

Well, depending on what you mean by "first time" sure. It's not the first time civilizations got screwed by not recognizing climate changes though, and it's also not the first time civilizations screwed themselves by changing the climate.

The difference this time is that the involved civilization isn't some Mayans in Central America or a bunch of islanders in the middle of the Pacific. It's all of us.

Damn those goalposts are slippery.

Ah, solipsism. Motivating humanity since... never.

The AC is incorrect. LLMs do it because their training data does it. Their training data includes lots of literature, scholarly humanities writing, journalism and ad copy. Naturally it sounds pretentious.

t is also why AI cannot replace any of the dangerous gross jobs people actually want replaced

https://renxhomes.ca/promise-r...

https://www.hitachicm.com/eu/e...

https://www.deere.ca/en/autono...

https://ntwist.com/blog/autono...

https://getsomatic.com/

https://blog.robozaps.com/b/hu...

It can, and is. Interaction with the real world is harder and takes longer because we don't have giant piles of training data sitting around ready to go like we do for images and text. There are also safety concerns and cost barriers that aren't there with things like text.

No post processing needed. LLMs sound like they do because that style was prominent in their training data and was scored highly by their trainers. If you ask most of the language models not to use excessive punctuation, lists, headings, polish your knob, and write at a grade six level, they generally sound reasonably human.

If you're watching some random thing on YouTube you should be wondering that regardless of whether it sounds like it was written by an LLM or not.