See the url in my comment (search for the term rfdetr-2xlarge).
2XL does indeed go up to 800x800 and has PML1.0 license instead of apache 2.0.
Rescaling is fine for some purposes but but not for all. For many domain-specific (often less common and odd dimensioned) objects, downscaling will severely reduce recall. There is a reason that Roboflow slaps a license that is not open source on those specific architectures.
“RF-DETR is both faster and more accurate and truly open source with an Apache 2.0 license”
Misleading marketing statement.
The catch is that for image resolutions >=700x700pixels (most production usecases), the roboflow license is actually PML1.0 instead of Apache2.0
https://github.com/roboflow/rf-detr#license
In the case of a universe of finite size, this analogy explains how there can be such a thing as a finite space without there being boundaries provided the space is (slightly) curved.
So this has less to do with an infinitely sized universe and more with the question of “What exists beyond the edge of the universe if it would be finite in size?”
Solar PV takes up a lot of land.
Rich, densely populated countries (like the Netherlands) find the areas outside of the cities to be more valuable as (recreational) nature, for upcoming housing projects, or for agricultural use.
Another (short term) practical reason is that remote areas where the land is cheap usually have a weaker connection to the electrical grid. As erecting vast solar parks takes months while fortifying the grid takes years (and is very expensive), this creates bottlenecks.
Erecting new solar parks in such remote areas is therefore (temporarily) prohibited:
https://www.sunforson.com/dutch-provinces-of-friesland-and-g...
Here you go:
https://lofar-surveys.org/public_hips/LoTSS_DR2_high_hips/
Note that the map is in radio (150MHz) but you can toggle to other ‘maps’ with different wavelengths.
At 150MHz, most emission is synchrotron emission originating either from supernovas and as such is a proxy for star(forming) regions of a galaxy, or originates from (plumes of accelerated particles from) the region around a galaxy’s super massive black hole.
Arecibo and FAST are giant immovables dishes (essentially a parabolic valley covered by some electrically conducting material). The receivers suspended above these dishes are somewhat moveable, but that is about it. That means they can only observe a small region of the sky exactly overhead (this region changes together with the rotation of the earth). VLBI requires multiple telescopes significantly separated from each other in physical space (think thousands of km) to track the same object on the sky during an observation.
Thus VLBI is hard/impossible for giant immovable dishes like FAST :)
About the legal basis: "RDS’ [Royal Dutch Shell] reduction obligation ensues from the unwritten standard of care laid down in Book 6 Section 162 Dutch Civil Code, which means that acting in conflict with what is generally accepted according to unwritten law is unlawful. From this standard of care ensues that when determining the Shell group’s corporate policy, RDS must observe the due care exercised in society. The interpretation of the unwritten standard of care calls for an assessment of all circumstances of the case in question."
Excerpt from the court sentence: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...
Incorrect. It comes from an IPCC report:
"In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range)." Excerpt from paragraph 2.3.5.2 of the court sentence: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...
"The assessment culminates in the conclusion that RDS is obliged to reduce the CO2 emissions of the Shell group’s activities by net 45% at end 2030 relative to 2019 through the Shell group’s corporate policy. This reduction obligation relates to the Shell group’s entire energy portfolio and to the aggregate volume of all emissions (Scope 1 through to 3). It is up to RDS to design the reduction obligation, taking account of its current obligations and other relevant circumstances. The reduction obligation is an obligation of result for the activities of the Shell group, with respect to which RDS may be expected to ensure that the CO2 emissions of the Shell group are reduced to this level. This is a significant best-efforts obligation with respect to the business relations of the Shell group, including the end-users, in which context RDS may be expected to take the necessary steps to remove or prevent the serious risks ensuing from the CO2 emissions generated by the business relations, and to use its influence to limit any lasting consequences as much as possible." Excerpt from the court sentence: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...
Take a look at this in-betweening technique in a recent ‘two-minute paper’ video: https://youtu.be/mb6WJ34xQXg
After some training, there is quite some realistic in-between generated for virtual humans.
Ethical philosopher Peter Singer presents and expands on the following argument in his book:[1]
"First Premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
Second Premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
Third Premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong."
I don't know about the US situation, but the recent EU proposal is often ridiculed for being just a "plastic straw ban".
Actually the "single-use plastics directive proposal [1]", part of a greater plastic strategy [2], is not only about plastic straws:
a) The ban will apply to plastic cotton buds, cutlery, plates, straws, drink stirrers and balloon sticks. These items represent 86% of all single-use plastic items on European beaches, and about half of all plastic marine litter washed up on European beaches.
b) Member States will have to reduce the use of plastic food containers and drinks cups.
c) Producers will help cover the costs of waste management and clean-up. The industry will also be given incentives to develop less polluting alternatives for these products.
d) Member States will be obliged to collect 90% of single-use plastic drinks bottles by 2025.
e) Member States will be obliged to raise consumers' awareness about the negative impact of littering of single-use plastics and fishing gear as well as about the available re-use systems and waste management options for all these products.
f) Fishing gear is also addressed:
"up to now, ports have been able to charge fishermen for bringing retrieved abandoned, lost or disposed of fishing gear ashore over and above their normal fee. The Commission’s proposal to revise the Port Reception Facilities Directive (COM(2018)33 final) removes this disincentive. However, ports' costs for expanding facilities and running them could find their way back into the port fee; thus increasing the overall cost for fishers.
This is where the Extended Producer Responsibility comes in. Under this scheme, fishing net producers take on the responsibility (and the cost) for managing fishing gear plastic once it is landed. So, this will reduce port costs for fishers, particularly in small fishing ports, and it will accelerate the development of a dedicated waste stream for fishing gear waste. [3]"
You could argue that this regulation is not enough.
You could argue that the ban should not focus on the most occuring single-use plastics that wash up on European beaches but should focus on the most occurring (micro)plastic-types in the oceans.
I would say this is a perfectly fine complementory step in the right direction.
Getting the distances between the telescopes is actually easier in space. Both distance measuring and datatransmission could be done with lasers when there is a clear line of sight. Moreover, once an orbit is established, the laws of Kepler are 'followed' and predicting their mutual distances is something we can do extremely well. On Earth with very long baselines it is much trickier and things that need to be taken into consideration are cablelength differences due to temperature changes, tides and continental drift. (Continental drift is actually measured with radio telescopes: in the reverse problem when the location of a set of sources on the sky is known to high precision one can establish at what speed the distances between the telescopes is changing.)
These fokes devoted quite some time into thinking about your problem: https://80000hours.org/
From their homepage:
"You have 80,000 hours in your career.
Make the right career choices, and you can help solve the world’s most pressing problems, as well as have a more rewarding, interesting life.
We’re here to give you the information you need to find that fulfilling, high-impact career. Our advice is all free, tailored for talented graduates & young professionals, and based on five years of research alongside academics at Oxford."
The 80000 hours podcast can be long winded but is at times also quite interesting.
Rescaling is fine for some purposes but but not for all. For many domain-specific (often less common and odd dimensioned) objects, downscaling will severely reduce recall. There is a reason that Roboflow slaps a license that is not open source on those specific architectures.
In some cases tiled inferencing (for example with https://github.com/obss/sahi ) might do the job.