As I understand it, habitats would need to be under some ground, and there really isn't much to do outside. So what'd be the point of lighting the surface up?
Well, if you don't have a bunch of pedestrians wandering around outside and people don't generally drive to the store in single-occupant vehicles, you don't really have much need for streetlamps either.
Maybe at some point when the population gets large enough that you'd have imported problems from Earth like random people stealing the Martian equivalent of a CD player and catalytic converter off your rover in the middle of the night, then security lighting may be a thing.
The main use I can think of for outside lighting in the short term would be people doing construction work at night. That might actually be preferred from a radiation point of view; I know Mars doesn't have much protection from radiation, but I'm not sure how much comes directly from the sun versus random ambient radiation in space.
Another possible source of light pollution would be greenhouses with big windows that are lit with artificial light at night.
Mars has enough atmosphere (and dust!) that there's stuff for light to bounce off of. e.g. the article notes that the dust actually produces longer twilights than on Earth, because dust scatters more light than Earth's relatively low-dust air.
Maybe you have super positive thinking... But most of people I know don't care enough to stop their life completely for something without an expiry date.
Ofc we stay away from family and are in non risk age.
And your assumption that things will go back to normal is not true. There are many companies, industries and places that will never return back to normal after this pandemic.
> But most of people I know don't care enough to stop their life completely for something without an expiry date.
Except there is an expiry date, the date you get the vaccine (or at least, a week or two after you get the second dose). And for most people, that should happen by this summer. If there were no vaccine on the horizon, then yeah, things would need to be different. It doesn't make rational sense to be taking any unnecessary risks when people are getting vaccinated as we speak. In 10 years, will you regret being extra careful for a few more months? No, but there's the potential that you could regret not being careful for the rest of your life.
> And your assumption that things will go back to normal is not true
I didn't say anything about normality on my post. All I talked about was the vaccine.
Its more like " There are difficulties on collecting data and historical reasons that leads to bias in the trained model"
Other side " no you are a racist and responsible for bias due for being a white male"
It's pretty clear that Gebru criticized LeCun for being apathetic about an obviously biased model, not because he's a white male. And again, "There are difficulties on collecting data and historical reasons that leads to bias in the trained model" is accurate, but it's still a total cop-out! There's no way Facebook would let results like [0] slide if there were money at stake - they'd get more training data, or even throw out training images of white faces, if they had to - so why is LeCun defending someone else's failure to do so?
More importantly, how should that make us feel about the very real possibility of LeCun serving as an expert advisor on, say, police or other military applications of AI? Would he again just throw up his hands and say, "Well the training data consists disproportionately of black faces, so the model disproportionately implicates black people, nothing we can do about it"?
If academia actually allowed failure we wouldn't be getting so many tiny incremental growth papers just for the sake of it as in deep learning and machine learning.
