miguelmurca

the website may look cool, but judging from the first article (at the time of reading), the content is atrocious.

> all rights reserved motherfuckers

> Use stronger thumbs rather than weaker pinkies to access

For some reason that sentence is extremely funny to me

To be completely honest I don't understand the appeal of Squid Game. It's a very thin metaphor around super shocking imagery --- and don't get me wrong, although it's not my thing, I can understand people liking slasher movies and the like, but I don't understand why this discourse that Squid Game is very deep (and anything other than cheap gore horror) became so popular.

From the comments: "@chx: I already have a master's thesis. This was harder."

"Hey it's Amos! Hi Amos!"

I am very suspicious of free lunches; almost surely this means the expressibility of QCNNs is limited (as opposed to a sufficient depth VQE)?

(Disclaimer: I didn't Google for known results w.r.t. the expressibility of QCNNs)

Isn't this pretty much the definition of survivorship bias? (Not discarding the information in the post)

> I’m a tech guy, not a military guy. And in terms of the kind of tech I’m into it’s that weird decentralized crypto tech like Bitcoin, not SaaS.

> really permits instantaneous connections between far-apart location

The phrasing in this article is tricky, as it wasn't FTL communication that was proven; just that there are correlations between things that would require FTL communication, were they classical processes. This is an important point: https://xkcd.com/1591/

Super cool article. Brownie points for the callback at the end to "To Compute a Constant of Calculus: (A treatise on multiple ways)" :^)

Read the article!

> The latest lawsuit, filed in India by three academic publishers, including Elsevier, asks the High Court of Delhi to block access to Sci-Hub throughout the country. While the case is pending, the court has instructed Sci-Hub to stop uploading papers to its database. The order is not unusual; what’s surprising is that Elbakyan has complied. She has a history of ignoring legal rulings, and the Indian court has no power over Sci-Hub’s activities in other countries. So why has she chosen, at this moment, to give in?

> One reason is that Elbakyan believes she has a shot at winning the case, and her odds might improve if she plays by the rules. “I want the Indian court to finally support free access to science,” she said. If that happened, it would mark a significant victory for Sci-Hub, with reverberations likely beyond India. Victory remains a longshot, but Elbakyan thinks it’s worth the hassle and expense.

> Regular modern computers process functions in a binary fashion, carrying out tasks that use fragments of data that are only ever a 1 or 0. Quantum computers use subatomic particles to perform calculations at far greater speeds than existing supercomputers, and data can be both a 1 and 0 at the same time.

twitch

(this is very wrong)

That's pretty funny, I never thought I'd be accused of peak HN :D

I meant it the way asveikau replied.

Playdate seems to me like a masterclass in marketing. The device is nothing extraordinary (imo), but it's presented and marketed in a way that makes it interesting.

> You know that argument that people used to have about 30 fps versus 60 fps? “The human eye can’t see the difference” and you don’t need more than 30 frames per second. By now you know better.

What a weird opener; if there's a topic that's plagued by anecdotal evidence it's this.

amos is also super super nice on twitter, if you say hi to him there!

Yes, in that it establishes an incompatibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

I would take this with a very big grain of salt.

Edit: After reading the introduction (keep in mind I haven't read it through)...

> In this paper, a local realistic but contextual model is presented, where the measurement results are predetermined but the polarization or spin (respectively) of particles in the singlet state is not fixed.

So the argument is that you're not collapsing the wavefunction so much as you don't know what you're measuring until you measure it?.. How is this compatible with a Stern–Gerlach experiment?

> see the Blockchain section

They expand on why that is their opinion just fine.

... Does it? The author made it pretty clear throughout the article that (in their opinion; see the "Blockchain" section) the walled-gardening comes from having to trap in your users in order to make some money from your service. The conclusion that you need to change the (larger picture) motivations for the existence of these services in order not to fall into this behaviour seems logical to me. (And, of course, if you want to change social organisation/motivation, the solution has to be political.)

I wanted something that was fairly simple like Make, but that allowed me to write/manage my logic, and not have to learn a domain specific language. OTOH I didn't want to go through the hassle of having to install Meson or whatever, and learn how to configure it.

I built [Sane][0], which is a single-file library without dependencies, that is basically a decorator definition and a function export.

[0]: https://github.com/mikeevmm/sane

hot damn.

> RENT > $1,500 per month

I'm from a relatively poor European country but, uh, damn, is this a normal value?

my bad, sorry about that. I think it's too late to edit? The button's no longer there.

Can we just have a sticky on every foone post on HN to tell people to stop complaining about it being a Twitter thread? Maybe then Foone himself [wouldn't hate being featured on Hacker News so much][0]. Not to mention he has a perfectly good reason to use Twitter threads (which he explains over and over): he has ADHD and it's a way to cope with it.

[0]: https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1372945388664066061?s=20

I agree, but the argument holds --- in particular I'm thinking of Google's supremacy experiment, where they did do something that, taken as a generic process, would require resources beyond "the best available classical hardware and the best available classical algorithms of the time". However, people play catch-up, and end up coming up with classical approaches for that particular experiment. Of course, factoring is a special and very strong case that is less susceptible to this.

> Can you say a bit more on the state of QEC ? Thanks.

There's not a lot I can say other than what's (I think) more or less common knowledge in the field: QEC is a practical issue, and so is deeply tied to physical implementation, etc. QC however, as an idea, has power in itself; you can define a Turing-like machine that incorporates notions of quantum mechanics, forming complexity classes that are thought to be disjoint from the classical ones (including probabilistic classical machines) (see ref. [2] in the OP). QEC is, then, any strategy that allows you to implement reliable (QC) resources in practice (think classical redundancy). The fact that you are dealing with quantum resources rather than classical makes it harder than CEC. The problem with current technology is that if you don't have QEC you can't really get to a point (resource-wise) where the classical/quantum class separation is relevant. Achieving this separation is what's called "supremacy" (or "advantage"). You can try to sidestep QEC by building quality (as noiseless as possible) quantum computers.

> From a very amateur perspective, it looked like Gil Kalai was arguing that physical realizations would not be impossible, but work at UIST and Google's "quantum supremacy" result, somehow have proved him wrong ?

Quantum supremacy is debated, and so not something I can reasonably comment on. From the explanation above however, you can see that supremacy is achieved whenever you do something with a QC that cannot be done with a classical computer. The problem is proving that something is 100% provably beyond the scope of a classical computer (people are clever, and so it's often not). However, one thing is to say whether people are achieving quantum supremacy, another is to say whether people are doing quantum computing. For the latter, I would say we definitely are. You can definitely access a quantum computer in the cloud and run routines that can only produce the given outcome if there are quantum effects in play. [1] (Whether or not you could simulate these results classically relates to supremacy, not whether QC is real.)

[1] https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/composer/docs/iqx/guide/en...

> Just as you might know plenty about programming but little or nothing about electronics or chip fabrication, so too can you learn about the wonders of quantum programming without knowing anything about the physics of the D-Wave Vesuvius processor or whatever.

I think you misunderstand me; I think it's great that people get into QC, and indeed they don't have to know everything from top to bottom (like I don't).

I just think that it should be regarded as getting into a specific area of biology, physics, or any other area of science, instead of being equated to learning C when you know Java, or something :)

I guess "physics based approach" could mean a few things (for context, my background is physics, not CS), but quantum chemistry [1,2] definitely stands in a very physics-y area while involving QC very directly. There is also QC for solid state physics, for more or less the same reasons you'd use QC for chemistry (scaling problems with the classical solutions).

On the other hand, quantum control (physically manipulating your quantum computer) has a lot of physics in it, but also crosses into EE. Likewise, looking into physical systems that can behave as a quantum computer is physics and EE. However I'm very much unfamiliar with that part, so I can't say anything there.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5213

[2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/02...