jaggirs

It doesn't. It says it is well suited for GoL, but not for slightly different problems.

> But others have suggested it is unfair to judge China's tech giants on the same basis as those from developed countries.

This is incredibly out of touch. How is China not part of the 'developed' countries? Some people seem to think we are still in 2010.

I think the issue here is how well connected such a port would be. From Rotterdam you can go all the way to Germany through a river. Not sure you could do the same from a port in the Mediterranean, as the terrain tends to be mountainous there.

Interesting fact: In a quantum algorithm you can not really delete information, which is why quantum algorithms are always defined as reversible computations (unitary matrices).

Also, here is a reversible programming language someone made (which has nothing to do with quantum):

https://wiki.c2.com/?ReversibleProgrammingLanguage

What are the limitations? When will it fail?

Can't help but point out the two of them would have been better off investing that money. With a 3% interest rate they both would have doubled it in 25 years.

I say learn to say yes first, then learn to say no. Saying no to everything because you think you can't do something is going to result in an extremely boring life. Find your limits first, you probably are capable of doing more than you think.

If they only allow sell orders, who is buying what is sold?

How is a rolling aggregate hard to update? If the value at index i is changed, just update everything from i-n to i+n (where n is the rolling window size).

They print additional usdt, that are not backed by dollars, and buy bitcoin with them.

"This entire “review” is lazy,.." "A thinner, less meaty review is hard to imagine."

What the hell are you talking about, that review was everything but lazy, she wrote 3 entire paragraphs of genuine, constructive feedback.

She couldn't figure out how to use the product -> Listen -> Make the product easier to use.

Your question boils down to whether or not the quantum circuit that entangles the qubits works correctly. You can simply test the reliability of the quantum circuit by running it multiple times and checking that the outcomes behave as you expect. For example, if your circuit is supposed to generate the entagled pair [00 or 11 with equal probability] you would expect measurements to either be 00 or 11 and never 01 or 10.

I think in this case it probably ends up suggesting random books that were read by your 'cluster' at different periods of their life (i.e. when they were a child) that they may not necessarily like to read now (I loved this book when I was a kid: 5 stars)

The only cherry picking is that the numbers need to be small enough that the decimal digit does not overflow (4 times 2 is fine but 4 times 3 is not).

A more 'convolved' example:

121 * 23 = 2783

If you use hex instead it also works for larger digits like 0x42 * 0x31 = 0xCA2 = [12, 10, 2]

So, if you convert to a digit of a large enough base you can do any multiplication with just a convolution and no carry.

Woha

This is cool. It literally is the same, if you use base-infinity digits (not binary, or decimal, but infinity-ary?).

How do you multiply two polynomials with a single variable?

But you are not going to buy a lenovo either. You are intrigued, what will their high-end offering be like? It may be worth the wait.

I think he is right. But I don't like his tone.

The whole writeup is a tantrum on why you should stick to "well known" facts. Which sounds to me too much like asserting the truth of things without questioning them. Yes, there are a lot of fools out there whith a spookrijder complex that are a detriment to science. And I would assume a well-known professor would rightly get tired of their emails.

He only shortly adresses at the end that radical ideas are precisely what is needed for progress in science.

I do not think this dismissive mentality does the situation any good. If someone comes with a radical but stupid idea, you need to first recognize the merit in the idea, and then show why it is wrong. Bashing someone with "you cannot create free energy" will only encourage him to waste his time trying to prove you wrong.

I suspect a lot of these spookrijders are curious and fairly smart people, but who's ideas where offhandedly dismissed by a teacher one too many times.

Can someone explain to me what the title of this post means? The most literal way I can interpret it as is "Everyone that trained for five years died". I doubt that is what is really meant.

Yes, that is what I said.

Still, it is an incentive to create dating opportunities. And what kind of date would not result in a relationship, but make you want to go on another date? It would need to be good and bad at the same time. Maybe a good date with the wrong person.. It sounds really hard to exploit this.

The coolest part I think is that you have a copy of all these websites on disk, which means you can run a full text search on all the websites you visited (or on their html, technically).

Browsers'history sucks. I don't know if this project does this, but I would absolutely love to be able to do SQL queries on my browsing history.

I have 'lost' many websites I remember visiting, but for which I didn't remember anything in the title.

Also, obviously, websites change sometimes, and the web archive might not have cached the website you visited. Although from what I can tell, this project doesn't version websites, it just caches the latest, so you would probably just overwrite the previous version accidentally.

Pretty crazy to think about. Its a billion dollars. For that much money, it might almost be worth it to go to jail for it and let your kids try to launder it 50 years later. There are bound to arise opportunities to launder at least part of it right? Even without considering that the bitcoins might become even more valuable, you could set up a dynasty with this money.

Routing a development server to the phone's localhost so I can use https-only features like service workers and camera access without setting up https.

ssh -L 8080:172.383.20.18:8080

You need to se it like this: iPhoneApple is selling off it's charger operations to someone else (it is important that they are different shareholders). Once the companies are split up, iPhoneApple won't want chargerapple to have an exclusive contract, since their phones are worth more if chargers are cheaper. So the only reason they would want to give an exclusive contract to ChargerApple is to sell it for more money. Considering this, they might as well sell it first and then negotiate an exclusive contract. Or hell, maybe they find someone who will pay more for it than their spinnof. At this point, iPhoneApple will realize what every other smartphone maker in the industry realizes: Selling exclusive charger contracts is not worth it.

No, all I've come up with googling 'progressive tax for companies' are textbook explanations why it is not 'fair' to do this. Presumably it wouldn't be fair to tax a company with revenue more than a highly valued startup. Fairness is too ambiguous a term I think to determine policy. Besides that, there are other monetary features to apply a progressive tax on.

This is good and all, but there is a much simpler solution to this problem and others:

Progressive taxation of companies

I know this sounds outrageous, but hear me out. What if monopolies split themselves? Wouldn't that be great? Does the same company really have to make the phone and the charger? No, but there are 2 reasons apple does:

1. Collaboration between the phone department and the charger department is slightly easier.

2. They can abuse their monopoly on iphone chargers to force you to pay more for them.

Apple makes about 30 billion on iphones per quarter. Assuming all iphones were $600 (which they arent) and everyone uses 2 chargers per iphone (because the first one broke) priced at $20, apple would be making $2 billion from chargers.

Say, if they didn't abuse their monopoly position for chargers they would make only $1.8 billion from them.

This is $2.0 billion - $1.8 billion = $0.2 billion less revenue.

Now if you just tax apple progressively such that taxes for 32 billion in revenue are more than $0.2 billion higher than paying taxes for 30 billion in revenue, apple will split into iphoneapple and chargerapple by themselves!

Now in practice you might not want to tax revenue but for example the value of the company or something else.

Also you don't want the 'split' companies to still behave like they are one company, this means that you want the split-off company to have different shareholders from the main company, because otherwise they would just behave in mutual interest.

More in line with the topic, netflix might decide to split into a 'movie suggestions algorithm' service and a 'movie streaming' company.

Google would split into a gazillions of different companies.

But some interoperable internet legislature might be a little more realistic :)

Cryptography \neq Programming

I feel like it should be trivial to make a 'scripting' variant of rust. Just by automatically wrapping values in Box/Rc when needed a lot of the cognitive overhead of writing Rust could be avoided. Add a repl to that and you have a highly productive and performant language, with the added benefit that you can always drop down to the real Rust backbone when fine-grained control is needed.

I think patents (and especially software patents) cause more problems than they are worth. The most valuable asset in an economy is entrepreneurship and creativity, which often comes in the form of an individual making something amazing in his 'garage'. Patents do not help the lone genious in any shape or form, in fact it is already a very bad idea to worry about patenting your idea early on, because the effort and money it will take to do so will detract from the invention itself. For the lone inventor, this means he essentially just has to take a gamble and hope no one has patented his idea. And if someone sues him, he is done, his invention gone with him (which was valuable even if it already existed).

Patents do somewhat work in the 'corporate' world, where potential inventions require a quantifiable capital investment that would obviously not be worth it in the absence of patent law (like antibiotics). But even then, companies often choose to keep the invention a secret if possible.

Software, generally is not like that, capital investment required is only quantifiable for 'big' applications, that do not require much creativity but simply a lot of work to create. And these applications are actually not the sort of thing that is patentable.

I think the reason patents are generally accepted is the 'righteus' notion that if someone invents something, he owns it and it cannot be stolen from him. But this notion is achterhaald, what if two people invent something at the same time? What someone invented the same thing a few years later, but actually succeeds in bringing it to market, unlike the first inventor?

This whole post is a beneficial use case of deepfake-ish tech.