effie

26 ms·

271.
by effie 4y ago
Or they do understand Apple's pricing, but realize you can buy PC hardware with much larger RAM and disk space for much better price.
272.
by effie 4y ago
Thanks.
273.
by effie 4y ago
Also: hardware is hard, cryptography is hard. Doing anything new and important is hard.
274.
by effie 4y ago
> Mostly because people didn't believe that it was possible to exploit the retpoline limitations versus the performance penalty to mitigate them. I'm not a native speaker, but is this an acceptable written English? The part sta
275.
by effie 4y ago
> Or how professors will throw a fit whenever you solve a limit problem using L'Hospital instead of their farcical show-and-dance about limits. They are teachers, they want you to think and practice mathematical way of thinking, usi
276.
by effie 4y ago
Dirac delta being zero almost everywhere is sometimes assumed (when describing infinitely short impulse) but often it is a superfluous assumption, that is not needed for the use of delta. This is because delta is a distribution, not a funct
277.
by effie 4y ago
Nobody wants to take the blame. But since we don't know for sure, everybody should, and we should regulate the sh*t out of special interests creating dangerous viruses, whether they do it on a wet market, or in laboratory.
278.
by effie 4y ago
What do you mean? How that relates to what I wrote?
279.
by effie 4y ago
> they always deposit energy over a time window ... Also this means they really don't exist as point particles I am afraid this is already the orthodox view, despite the suggestive/misleading pictures used when teaching particl
280.
by effie 4y ago
> My boss is literally publishing a paper about how photons ontologically do not exist. I would be interested in this paper. Lamb argued the same, with good intention, but not everybody was impressed.
281.
by effie 4y ago
> most physicists do believe that quantum fields are the most basic building block of our world Do they? Maybe most theoretical physicists , because that's what they work with, they often are platonists and there is no better model
282.
by effie 4y ago
There are other costs, with deployment and maintenance. Well built HTTP site works on its own until browsers intentionally stop accepting it. HTTPS site works for few months and then a new certificate needs to be obtained and deployed. This
283.
by effie 4y ago
> Therefore if the quantum state of a system is fully described by its wavefunction Big if. Real systems interact with their environment, which means every psi calculation is approximate, as there is no limit to the possible expansion of
284.
by effie 4y ago
I really detest this kind of peppy proselytizing lecture. It is about mainstream science, but the poor form and lack of respect for the listener is horrible. He is wooing the public a lot with a priest-like confidence on what the world is m
285.
by effie 4y ago
> If I have a situation where I take the quantum vacuum and get a different, random result every time I measure it, it seems like quite a stretch to conclude that it is _really_ deterministic. If you take number generator and get a diffe
286.
by effie 4y ago
No. Bell's theorem states that local hidden variable theory obeys Bell's inequalities. Quantum theory models and some experiments with light violate those inequalities. At best, we can conclude that any deterministic theory suppla
287.
by effie 4y ago
So, lattice QCD is often mentioned as an example of computationally well-defined quantum field theory with some reliable results. Wikipedia talks about "lattice QCD is a way to solve the theory". What does this really mean? What q
288.
by effie 4y ago
Troy Hunt points out that HTTP traffic is sometimes MITMed in a way that clients and servers do not like, and HTTPS sometimes prevents that. I never said otherwise. I am saying for certain kinds of pages, it's not a major concern. Like
289.
by effie 4y ago
Yes. But if you worry about being a target for MITM attacks, https alone does not fix that problem. You need some reliable verification mechanism that is hard to fool. The current CA system or "trust on first use" are only partial
290.
by effie 4y ago
If you care about preventing those kinds of leaks, do not use mainstream browsers (they are likely to leak even your https URLs to the browser company), and do not access those pages directly using your home connection (there may be mitms b
291.
by effie 4y ago
Why? Http is simpler, less fragile, not dependent on good will of third parties, the content is public, and proving authenticity of text on Internet is always hard, even when served via the https scheme. I bet Bernstein thinks there is litt
292.
by effie 4y ago
What backdues? They were neutral, there was no treaty. > "Depend implicitly" That is your opinion. These countries have capable armies. US benefits from NATO in a different way; it gets unprecedented level of access and control
293.
by effie 4y ago
The alliance is capable of dealing with the bully, but it clearly prefers not to, and will probably say meh even if Ukraine gets totally destroyed. Which may cause some leaders in Ukraine, just as some already do in EU/America, think t
294.
by effie 4y ago
FSB is for internal control, that would be GRU or other unknown parts of spook operations. There is alternative explanation to being friendly with Russia - some people believe it can work, especially when they are part of NATO. Look at what
295.
by effie 4y ago
Nuclear shield is a pretty nonsensical media term. There is no shielding from nuclear weapons, there is only nuclear deterrence. And I don't think pro-Russian leaderships in those countries would dumbly remove nuclear deterrent to Russ
296.
by effie 4y ago
Yeah, but even these dictator types need to keep people distracted, to prevent discontent, unrest and dangerous ideas of revolution from brewing in the population. Dictators sometimes do get removed.
297.
by effie 4y ago
You can't compare budgets between US and Russia. Price of materials, labor and skill are much lower in Russia. And with nuclear weapons, the exact number of them is not that important. Even if Russia's working warhear number is 1&
298.
by effie 4y ago
Good point. It costs so little to keep the channels open. Provided we keep the deterrence effective. It is okay to talk, if we at the same time demonstrate we aren't weak and are not afraid.
299.
by effie 4y ago
> its a bully that understands only force of the stronger, any concept of law, fairness, democracy etc. are simply not present there. Soft approach is publicly maybe welcomed, but privately laughed at as clear show of weakness. I almost
300.
by effie 4y ago
The main claim that the Schroedinger equation isn't consistent with chaotic behaviour of observables because it is linear in psi seems poorly thought out. As one commenter on youtube pointed out, the Schroedinger equation is linear in

More ›