staunton

8 ms·

61.
by staunton 1y ago
Was that project a success? Was it used in practice? Was the effort justified by any usages? The repository readme doesn't seem to go into that.
62.
by staunton 1y ago
I guess you're talking about "nuclear winter", where the ash from the nuclear explosions gets into the upper atmosphere, blocks some of the sunlight and leads to a global famine. I'm not sure what's "a small nu
63.
by staunton 1y ago
I'm having trouble parsing your comment... What is a dumb thing? Who is emphasizing what?
64.
by staunton 1y ago
Those are a patent (with status "abandoned", whatever that means) and a scientific paper. Quite different from an instance where something is used in practice. Do you know any instances of practical usage? People getting actual ke
65.
by staunton 1y ago
I'm not asking if it's "a real thing". I'm asking if it's used anywhere, either commercially or -- in any case -- to encrypt actually sensitive data outside of tech demonstrations. I'm not aware of anythin
66.
by staunton 1y ago
"QKD is already used by banks and governments to transmit keys over fibre optics." I wonder what specific uses they mean. It's kind of hard to believe those are "serious" use-cases, going beyond demonstrations done
67.
by staunton 1y ago
> What is good in the dashboard if you cannot be sure it was not partially hallucinated? A lot of the time the dashboard contents doesn't actually matter anyway, just needs to look pretty... On a serious note, the systems being buil
68.
by staunton 1y ago
This paper is solving (basically) high-school-level problems by training neural networks on the "obvious" cost function. All of those problems can be solved much cheaper by standard numerical solvers for ordinary differential equa
69.
by staunton 1y ago
Arguably, if building quantum computers leads to quantum mechanics being falsified, that completely justifies the effort of trying to build them. The "disappointing" scenarios would be either that the engineering task turns out to
70.
by staunton 1y ago
Indeed, the images I remember most vividly myself (though I wouldn't say they shocked me at any point) is the guts being emptied. So it was some more traditional process for specialty sausages, not a huge factory. Then again, some pe
71.
by staunton 1y ago
Most just expressed their shock (which didn't seem staged) but changed nothing. One person became vegetarian for about a year, then started to eat meat again. I'm not sure if they still eat sausages.
72.
by staunton 1y ago
Can you elaborate? It's hard to take much away from your comment without any more details.
73.
by staunton 1y ago
> we all know how sausages are made. I'm doubtful. There's a few documentaries showing the process and I've had people tell me multiple times that they were genuinely shocked by it. I'm assuming those people "kne
74.
by staunton 1y ago
There is no such thing as a magical "quantum realm". Devices performing quantum state preparation or measurements are just devices. They aren't perfect and can never be made to "100%" satisfy any assumptions. The Q
75.
by staunton 1y ago
Other than by going around and finding the eavesdropper sitting somewhere, one cannot.
76.
by staunton 1y ago
> anything fast moving Examples of using GR are few, GPS being the most prominent one, another being astronomy. Making this point, SR would be a better example. Maybe a better description would be "we use GR to describe extremely pr
77.
by staunton 1y ago
We still use Newton's equations for building rockets (and a lot of other things). A theory being replaced by a better one does not mean devices motivated by the obsoleted theory stop working...
78.
by staunton 1y ago
For eavesdropping, there is someone there who cares about what you're sending and is successfully learning things about it.
79.
by staunton 1y ago
> Only the key exchange step with an authenticated endpoint is 100% secure. It's 100% secure in theory , assuming a model of the hardware (which is impossible to verify even if you could build it to "perfectly" satisfy al
80.
by staunton 1y ago
Only if that interpretation lasts despite likely intense lobbying to the contrary.
81.
by staunton 1y ago
Since you're apparently interested in downvotes (why?), I'm pretty sure it's not due to criticism of Go but rather the fact that your criticism is entirely non-specific and therefore doesn't add anything to the discussio
82.
by staunton 1y ago
> While the idea of being able to trivially share code worldwide is appealing, so far it seems to encourage shittier software more than anything else, and the benefit of sharing trivially seems to be defeated by the downsides that bloat
83.
by staunton 1y ago
That leads to a kind of fluid distinction similar to interpreted vs. compiled languages. You tell the AI what you want it to do. The AI does what you want. It might process the requests itself, working at the "code level" of your
84.
by staunton 1y ago
I just went on apple.com and tried for 8 minutes to find "long beautiful flowing content". Most of the actual text I came across there were not-so-beautiful legal disclaimers... Can you share a link to what you mean?
85.
by staunton 1y ago
Quite likely, further progress will lead to LLMs writing "better" than at least 99% of humans. I think this will be no more of a contest than playing chess has been: humans don't stand a chance, but it also doesn't matte
86.
by staunton 1y ago
> Because you want to pass on knowledge? Arguably, that's not what teachers mainly do (to an ever increasing proportion). Most knowledge is easily available. A teacher is teaching students to think in productive ways, communicate th
87.
by staunton 1y ago
And what will we do next after that gets cheated?
88.
by staunton 1y ago
I'm sure it's beside the point but... Your benchmark for "long flowing beautiful content" is apple.com? It's competing with Hemingway?
89.
by staunton 1y ago
I've never met someone like that and don't believe the claim. Maybe you mean people who are bad at interviews? Or people whose job isn't actually programming? Or maybe "lots" means "at least one"? Or maybe
90.
by staunton 1y ago
Who said it's durable?

More ›