jaddood

Why not use formally-verified software?

You could also choose to use formally verified software for sensitive research.

As mentioned, it should be pronounced "rung," but in any case, removing the i and suddenly making it a word and pronouncing it in a very unexpected way is really pretty stupid. I think, if one's really insisting on using "ring" but without the i, at least call it "rung" not "rng" so that its pronounciation is clear.

If it's so important to have a "rng" instead of a "ring" then using its name in some example of its usage should probably be better.

I wonder if there's any possibility of genetically engineering the fungi and using them to extract more energy from contaminated areas and nuclear waste as a form of biofuel. That would be quite an interesting way to use nuclear waste.

I used Openshot to edit an (originally) 2 hour-long video on my Linux machine [1]. It was not a very complicated edit, but included adding a logo throught the whole video, and trimming some parts of the video. I'm not a great video editor, but I think it could be better. The interface is quite intuitive, but there's a good deal of latency moving around in it, loading photos and other files. In general, it's not as snappy as I expected it to be. I must say though that it was the only reasonable open source editor that I could find, so, I guess that says a bit about the condition of FOSS video editors...

[1] https://youtu.be/mvIHoeZKn2U

Sewage contains other volatile products that would evaporate and condense along with water. Cleaning sewage water for use in drinking is probably much, much harder than doing it with just sea water.

Did you just forget Esperanto?

This is a very good idea, and could be used by Google or other advertisement agencies (if only they want to.) You may pay the revenue the ads make and get the stuff you want to learn instead. This way, Google gets its money, and you get to learn. Also, this could be uesful in that it doesn't require too much tracking of the users. It is definitely not fully sustainable, but it could be better than nothing.

A more reasonable thing to do is to form a council of computer scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, politicians, and people otherwise capable of having a useful opinion in the matter.

That council would then have the task of reviewing new technologies and their potential impacts. The council may then have different subgroups each discussing a certain technology, or possibly each with a certain specific task such as: reviewing research papers, watching the developments inside companies, writing legal propositions, etc...

This council could then be under a government agency, or better yet, an NGO that can get funding by the government, from donations, universities, etc...

What would you think about that?

From the paper,

The only difference between Theorem 1 and its quantum equivalent in [13] is that the quantum algorithm has no ε approximation factors (so ε=0 and 1/ε does not appear in the runtime). Thus, we can say that our algorithm performs just as well, up to polynomial slowdown and ε approximation factors.

With ε being the accepted margin of error, theorem 1 being the algorithm produced by Tang, and [13] being a reference to Kerenidis and Prakash's quantum algorithm kept here in the quote for fidelity of quoting.

This means that this algorithm is not really a substitue for the quantum algorithm because it will require a level of error to be accepted (something which might work in recommendation engines, but not necessarily outside that context) and it still has polynomial slowdown over the quantum algorithm. One thing to note is that not all quantum algorithms will perform exponenttially better than their classical counterparts. Particularily, some quantum search algorithms perform only quadratically better than the classical search algorithms. This means that even if an exponential speedup was not achieved by quantum computers, (which it still is because of the ε factor meaning they don't give the same results) it is expected that they still achieve polynomial speedup as they do in this case.

In conclusion, stating that this algorithm threatens the prospects of quantum computation is probably an exageration.

Hello!

Could you give an overview of the proceedings of your job as a researcher in quantum computing?

For instance, how do you start your day job, what do you do during the day (how exactly do you do research,) how do you end your day, etc...

Be crazy. Do crazy things like Elon Musk does. Everything remembered was not ordinary.

What???? Who told you that? What kind of proof do you have? It seems to me that it's just some meaningless sentence just to make empathy with dystopian views of the world, but without any real reflection in the real world.

This kind of reminds me of Norwegian mythology where, as far as I can remember, there was an icy world in the North and a fire in the South, and as the fire melted the ice, a thin strip of life began forming.

You don't really need a river to pump hydro up and down. As long as you have some kind of container for the water (usually a dam though not necessarily so,) you can pump any water. The cheapest to pump is probably sea water. I'm not really sure how cheap that would be compared to batteries, but it's still an option.

I am sure the people at CERN have reasons in choosing machine learning for that purpose, but I don't see it ideal for this case. Machine learning might be able to give you your results faster, but generally with a lot lower accuracy. But suppose the teams got to a really good accuracy in their programs, it's still for the known and expected. In particle physics research — or any research for that matter — you cannot simply give it a shot, because your system might miss very interesting collisions while you think it's working perfectly fine. I think quantum computing can be really quite useful here given that the analysis can benefit from parallel processing. Should ML be necessary, I recommend develop it in a way that its doings are understandable. (I'm not sure they'll even read the comment to get the recommendation, but let's give it a try.) Explainable AI is becoming really significant these days, and some big companies and organisations are working on it. If I'm not mistaken, the DARPA is working on a project as such, so it's really not too far off.

If the matter was only about weakening the external monopolies, than the tactics are definitely really really bad.

The pain and trouble that this legislation would generate to Europe and to the whole world is much worse than say Google's monopoly.

I believe if the EU had an honest intention of only undermining monopolies from countries outside the EU (mainly the US), then it should find another way to go with it without disrupting the whole open knowledge concept. Otherwise, it will be truly disasterous.

The problem here, I think, is that although humans can be studied without knowing the structure of their brains, (psychology, sociology, etc...) machines of today cannot. The reason for that is that humans are humans and barely differ from each other biologically (the structure of the brain), but ANNs are very diverse and their behavior changes depending on their "biology," so machine psychology or machine sociology cannot be built on stable grounds

In case anyone wants to dig into the follow up on Lp norms, here it is: http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2013/03/22/using-norm...

This is extremely similar to the 'microscopic planner for shell' that I wrote and often use.

Take a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14126006

I also add a few aliases to make it even quicker:

  alias mcr='mplan create'
  alias msh='mplan show'
  alias mrm='mplan remove'
  alias mclear='mplan remove \*'

Wow! That's a lot of stuff to dig into! Thanks a lot for sharing! xD

Wow! That's a lot of stuff to dig into! Thanks a lot for sharing. xD

I can imagine cutting trees, burning large areas of vegetation to allow for mining, which is even worse. Lands get deformed, parts of limestone mountains start collapsing. Plants never grow again in the area unless aggressive regenaration of the land and planting is done. The soil gets fragile and unstable.

I also wonder how the process of production is done. To process limestone usually produces a lot of co2 (I have no reference, but that's what I remember from reading stuff online). Additionally, as many have noted the plastics used (20% of the final mass of the product) still are plastics made from fossil resources. Is a way for recycling known, especially considering the final product is a mixture of plastics and limestone?

It seems that the producer does not have a real, scientific proof that his production is environmentally good, but does it as a 'novel', and 'fascinating' idea with the only goal of making money. The article itself says that the producer looks forward to making a product that will last, but does not indicate that the producer ever had a goal of protecting the environment.

Finally, the subject is very much worth of discussion in HN, and I personally feel thankful for the one who submitted it.

Agreed. Scheme itself is "not much of s language." It's like a language-agnostic language.

I believe that although it is not useless, the only real way to fight climate change, as in everything else, is to have educated and conscious people who will protect the environment with a moral cause not a legal, weak one.

It seems it is forbidden for the Turks to get cultivated like other people in the world... We live in an era of lack of information (which is probably like all other eras)

One should read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley after this.

Why not introduce some sort of AI to it and get it to understand more what one wants to do?

Misleading title

I didn't know pretty much anything about linear algebra, but by watching the series, I felt deep enlightenment. Also, the videos they have done about topology really made me believe everything is, in essence, geometry.