eigenket

27 ms·

361.
by eigenket 3y ago
I've seen and heard a lot of what they can do, but certainly not everything. Pretty sure humanity as a whole is very far from understanding everything ants do and why.
362.
by eigenket 3y ago
That's insanely impressive and almost scary level of adaptation/smart behaviour from the ants. Edit: it feels more like something you'd read from Adrian Czajkowski/Tchaikovsky rather than reality.
363.
by eigenket 3y ago
Same, although mine has cowsay -f stegosaurus And I've been meaning to get rid of the lolcat because it's the only thing on my laptop with a Ruby dependency and I'd like to reclaim the disk space that requires.
364.
by eigenket 3y ago
Yeah you can do all sorts of sports shooting in the UK, people do clay pigeon shooting or target shooting or even hunt birds (pheasant and grouse) and the like in the UK. We just have sane (or if you're American, draconian) controls on
365.
by eigenket 3y ago
Its not a hill to die on at all, it's just a bit weird. Like how I would find it weird to translate Costa Rica into English.
366.
by eigenket 3y ago
No one has to do anything, that's not how politeness works. You choose yourself whatever is most reasonable to you. The situation is not quite analogous however, since Germans generally don't mind us calling their country "
367.
by eigenket 3y ago
Using the preferred name for people and places is a fairly basic sign of respect (at least in my cultural bubble). It would have taken the author literally 30 seconds to do a find-and-replace at the end of writing his article to fix this.
368.
by eigenket 3y ago
Firefox does that in the UK and Poland from my experience. I've not actually used the setting because I'm paranoid and prefer to enter them myself, but it is definitely offered.
369.
by eigenket 3y ago
Probably for some models of quantum computers yes, but there are many different ways to build one and not all will be limited in this way. For example the polarisation degree of freedom of a photon doesn't appear to interact with gravi
370.
by eigenket 3y ago
Oh, are you calling it a war now? I thought you'd all been instructed that it was a "special military operation" or some similar nonsense. Let's try to be as objective as we can here. I think the fact that Russia and Cam
371.
by eigenket 3y ago
Where did I say I hold random Russian citizens guilty for the actions of their government? I certainly don't. The vast majority of Russian citizens are victims of their shitty government, just like the rest of us who have been impacted
372.
by eigenket 3y ago
Do you think that I'm going to shy away from saying the US, Israel and other allies have committed brutal attacks on civilian populations? Yeah that has repeatedly happened. Doesn't have anything to do with the point at hand thoug
373.
by eigenket 3y ago
Since you haven't replied with any actual critique of the analysis done by the National Bureau of Economic Research I assume you don't have any? Have you even read their report?
374.
by eigenket 3y ago
Cambridge analytica for one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica And probably Russia who has an obvious interest in a weaker EU and UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interferen
375.
by eigenket 3y ago
I'm a physicist but not an expert in this field, but my guess would be the answer a comprehensive "no". The way satellites orbit is incredibly well described by Newtonian mechanics and there the impact of their mass on the sh
376.
by eigenket 3y ago
So the fundamental problem in quantum gravity is something like this (arguably). Particles with mass distort space-time (according to general relativity). Particles can be in superpositions where different parts of the superposition are in
377.
by eigenket 3y ago
Gravity can and must "take this into account" somehow. The problem is we don't really have a working theory of gravity which does this. There are a bunch of proposals, including this one but none of them are really complete o
378.
by eigenket 3y ago
According to quantum mechanics there is plenty of true randomness around. If you get an electron or ion and pass it through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus [1] or a photon and pass it through a polarising beam splitter. Then in each case you can
379.
by eigenket 3y ago
Nah the Weinstein thing is a meme, Oppenheim and his collaborators are proper scientists who write real papers about their stuff where they do real maths and physics. Not even comparable.
380.
by eigenket 3y ago
This is not completely accurate. The theory proposed by Oppenheim and his collaborators appears to be a consistent theory with classical gravity interacting with quantum stuff. It is subjectively rather ugly, but it does appear to be a coun
381.
by eigenket 3y ago
If it can reproduce the text then it is stored somehow . It is stored in a somewhat hard to understand way, encoded in weights in a network but it must be stored otherwise it would not be possible to reproduce it. You can ask "please
382.
by eigenket 3y ago
If it can and does reproduce a piece of text verbatim then the text is indisputably stored somehow in the model.
383.
by eigenket 3y ago
The second paragraph of the article is > As outlined in the lawsuit, the Times alleges OpenAI and Microsoft’s large language models (LLMs), which power ChatGPT and Copilot, “can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closel
384.
by eigenket 3y ago
If for some reason you really need to represent exactly a third of a meter (or anything else) rationals are not exactly difficult to use on a computer.
385.
by eigenket 3y ago
Decoherence here pretty much just means "enough individual errors that you can't recover from them anymore". Theoretically yes, it is quite clear that you can protect against this. Practically doing so at the scale you need f
386.
by eigenket 3y ago
You may well be correct in that bet. I lean that way myself more than most of my colleagues. On the other hand your reasoning is quite wrong, entanglement is both very well understood and fairly robust. Scale and gate fidelity are significa
387.
by eigenket 3y ago
The biggest reason I think its possible is that there are a lot of different ways you could build a quantum computer. Different groups are exploring building physical qubit systems out of transmons in superconductors, topological systems, l
388.
by eigenket 3y ago
I am a researcher in quantum information and this seems highly unlikely to me. Quantum computers, as far as I can tell, get significant improvements over classical computers only for quite specific highly mathematically structured problems
389.
by eigenket 3y ago
There isn't a good non-technical answer to your previous question but lemma 3.3 of this paper [1] says that if you can correct a finite set of errors for each qubit individually then you can also (essentially for free) correct all othe
390.
by eigenket 3y ago
You are completely wrong. ArXiv doesn't work like that.

More ›