> You could integrate acceleration to get speed - the flight is short enough to make compounding errors easy to ignore.
‘Easy to ignore’ is not a term I would use here, especially given the motion environment of a rocket. It seems like it might be beginning to be borderline possible.
Halloween happens once a year, that’s a big reason it’s tolerated. Also, many parents do provide guidance/control over how much and how fast the candy is eaten. Because otherwise everyone suffers.
The better comparison is what if there was a bottomless bucket of candy in your 10 year olds room all the time.
This is a really interesting comparison, but a flawed analogy. (I’m absolutely not challenging your preference for tube amps.)
LEDs clearly do not produce anything like the spectral energy of blackbody radiation (sunlight, incandescence bulbs), and many do flicker (although that’s a byproduct of individual designs, not the technology itself). This is easy to confirm with simple sensors. So it’s completely uncontroversial to say they don’t replicate “natural” light.
Pretty much all tube amp designs produce an output that is modified from the input signal. This is what makes them sound different and to plenty of personal opinions more enjoyable to listen to music on. But they are more like the “LED” side of the lighting example - they produce an output that is different from the “natural” aka original audio material.
Why stupid? Vector images are widely used and extremely useful directly and to render raster images at different scales. It’s also highly connected with spacial and geometric reasoning and precision, which would open up a whole new class of problems these models could tackle. Sure, it’s secondary to raster image analysis and generation, but curious why it would be stupid to persue?
Anyone expelling a student over a single “ai” label from turnitin alone is a complete idiot. Perhaps that happens occasionally, but that’s clearly the result of horrible decision making that isn’t really turnitins fault.
Anyone who gives 10 seconds of thought to how this could help realizes at 90% it’s a helpful first pass. Motivated students who really want to hide can probably squeak past more often than you’d like. And you know there will be false positives so you do something like:
* review those more carefully, or send it to a TA if you have one to do so
* keep track of patterns of positives from each student over time
* explain to the student it got flagged, say it’s likely a false positive, and have them talk over the paper in person
I’m sure decent educators can figure out how to use a tool like that. The bad ones are going to cause stochastic headaches for their students regardless.
“Less interesting” is an interesting value to compare things that are typically measured by utility. Human form factor robots are definitely more interesting to us as humans, but really only economically viable for high mix low volume tasks (of which there are many).
But past a certain scale special purpose machines will always be more cost effective.
That was widely ridiculed, but despite how it sometimes seems policy makers are not so stupid to believe saving water from cups not drunk would make a meaningful difference directly.
One of the big hurdles for changing human behavior at scale is improving awareness. Even people who want to conserve their water usage benefit from frequent reminders to actually make changes stick. Being reminded the state is in a drought every time you go to a restaurant was an effective way to keep lots of people regularly conscious of the issue. Even if they complained about the method.
‘Easy to ignore’ is not a term I would use here, especially given the motion environment of a rocket. It seems like it might be beginning to be borderline possible.