Vecr

11 ms·

121.
by Vecr 2y ago
How long does it take to generate a key that big? What probabilities do you need to put on generating a composite number and not a prime? Does the prime need extra properties?
122.
by Vecr 2y ago
That's right, I agree that Multiple Worlds isn't any less correct/falsifiable than quantum mechanics as a whole. I've never heard about quantum logic before. The "Bayesian" part makes sense because of how it
123.
by Vecr 2y ago
A lot of people probably don't follow the law.
124.
by Vecr 2y ago
They are? The short term recommendation is 3072, and I still see lots of 2048. Actually, it's mostly 2048.
125.
by Vecr 2y ago
I'm sure you could use all polymer capacitors and no electrolytics if you did everything digitally. Audiophiles probably wouldn't like that though.
126.
by Vecr 2y ago
I don't know what he's saying, but I'm saying that the answer to your question is "Yes," unless quantum computers behave differently than expected.
127.
by Vecr 2y ago
It's just not how it works. All this type of quantum computer can do is test some of the more dubious objective collapse theories. Those are wrong anyway, so all theories that are still in the running agree.
128.
by Vecr 2y ago
No, it works okay-ish. For the cost they should have been able to do better though.
129.
by Vecr 2y ago
It's not, when you try to go to the video it says "Tom Evans" on the error message.
130.
by Vecr 2y ago
This is a server fan, it's already really loud.
131.
by Vecr 2y ago
It is. What's your question? I think all model makers are at least strongly encouraged to get their models tested for ability to help terrorists with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN weapons included). The US and UK governments care
132.
by Vecr 2y ago
> That line exists somewhere for everyone, no one would suggest that a mother shouldn't kiss her child. Well, um, technically... There's probably situations when it's a bad idea, but getting a C-section bloodless enough fo
133.
by Vecr 2y ago
I disagree. I think the conditions to get a game theory style setup going are quite specific. Always "defecting" against everything (with no warning) and clearing outwards as fast as you can is probably converged upon along many p
134.
by Vecr 2y ago
In a more general form too, and one that I think might be more realistic (depending on the ultimate limits of technology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_hypothesis
135.
by Vecr 2y ago
What's the Helvetica Scenario? Just a joke? I know all the other ones.
136.
by Vecr 2y ago
I don't think I was clear, but I was only talking about the presenter's attempted explanation of the statistics of this problem.
137.
by Vecr 2y ago
I don't think this is a real, non-psychological effect in general. For this coin flipping of this very particular method, yes the physics simulations look right, but in general it's not something I think exists, or would even redu
138.
by Vecr 2y ago
Nah, you can put in a rule to stop. It would be better to know ahead of time, but you don't need to.
139.
by Vecr 2y ago
Yeah, if I'm actually forced to use a coin instead of a computer system, I try to ping the thing off the ceiling and at least one wall (not in that order). Hitting various other things is a benefit, not a downside.
140.
by Vecr 2y ago
I don't think Bible verses are related. There are multiple ways to ground Bayesian statistics without resorting to grounding in coin flips. The simplest one isn't that robust, there's a mathematical one but it's abstract
141.
by Vecr 2y ago
How? I described how to randomize the initial side. Boolean true for heads, boolean false for tails, for example. Keep pulling those from the Kernel's secure RNG.
142.
by Vecr 2y ago
That's not the problem. You can test that by using a highly secure random number generator, e.g. /dev/random in Linux, to select the initial side. Keep track of that initial side, record the side it lands on. This paper shows
143.
by Vecr 2y ago
Probably not. A reasonable Kelly calculation would make the attempt negative utility. Too much overhead. Also, depending on who's betting against who, deviating from the very particular protocol in the study would be highly incentivize
144.
by Vecr 2y ago
How good are you at Bayesian statistics, conditionalization, and understanding various biases? The simulation here should be good (it's better than mine).
145.
by Vecr 2y ago
Ah man, please use Bayesian statistics there... Well, the presenter says he doesn't know much about statistics.
146.
by Vecr 2y ago
I don't think that's true, isn't this tested in a way to obviate that psychological effect? I've done coin-flipping in computer simulations and that doesn't happen. (And yes it was a bit more realistic vs a single e
147.
by Vecr 2y ago
It is legal to shout "fire", more or less. Or at least there's no prior restraint. I wouldn't suggest it, because there's plausibly various laws that apply where you live, and it would be expensive to get them throw
148.
by Vecr 2y ago
> Eh, only if you're minimizing suffering per living being. Not total suffering. Having more happy creatures doesn't cancel out the sad ones. But I see what you mean. According to this guy it does.
149.
by Vecr 2y ago
How much of your posting is sophistry? I assume this isn't (I doubt this increases the positivity of the perception of EA), but the God stuff makes very close to no sense at all. If it's sophistry anyway, can't you take Eli
150.
by Vecr 2y ago
I still don't have a list, but are you sure that's not an affectation to better mimic a combination of Atlas Shrugged and a Japanese light novel?

More ›