HN user

ks1723

71 karma
Posts2
Comments42
View on HN

This is just not true. There has been tremendous progress in the field. Starting with google’s experiment in 2019 on showing quantum advantage - admittedly on a useless problem, but quantum advantage nevertheless, to fault tolerant encodings by the Harvard group to recent demonstrations of a road toward advantage in generative models by goggle, to name a few. It’s still far away from running Shor’s algorithm to factor relevant numbers and break RSA and the like, but even there dramatic progress is being made, see, e.g., https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9665

Unfortunately, the United States yet again has to bail out the rest of the world.

You mean like the one last time where they fought the war on terrorism in Afghanistan for the rest of the world and where it took them 20 years to replace the Taliban with … ehm … the Taliban?

This is utter nonsense. I have seen and read many reports and articles about the suffering in Gaza and the West Bank in the mainstream media! And you won’t loose your job when expressing solidarity.

But apart from all the other stuff you mention, you’re missing an important point: these things move. And unless all objects are synchronized (which they are not) they occupy a whole orbit, not only their actual volume. If two orbits intersect, the objects occupying those will eventually collide.

Therefore, they occupy much more volume.

One of the major problems with dark matter and dark energy is, that the standard model has been experimentally confirmed to such high precision. All possible extensions proposed so far which tried to explain dark matter /dark energy have been basically falsified by the experiments.

The standard model is so descriptive and accurate, there is just no room for extensions which predict new physics but are still consistent with existing data.

This is formalized in the Kochen–Specker theorem [1]. Quantum mechanics is shown to incompatible with the following three assumptions being true simultaneously: (1) locality, (2) non-contextually (independent of the context of the experiments (3) realism.

AFAIK, at least one assumption needs to go.

There is a nice paper by N. David Mermin illustrating the incompatibility [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theor...

[2] https://www.physics.wisc.edu/courses/home/spring2020/407/exp...

What I (as a non-US citizen living outside the US) never understood about the US political system is

1. Apparently none sees the (to me obvious) downsides of a two-party system where there is only black and white with cold-war logic of being either with us of against us, no grey zones and willingness for compromise.

and

2. monetary interests are so close to the political system by construction: candidates need to raise a lot of money during their campaigns which they get from companies, private persons and which is tied to their person. How can you not assume that all those people who get into office (senator, president, even judges as I learned recently) with money they got from someone is not in a conflict of interest right from the start? To me it seems there cannot be any independence.

I my view, the 'exactly' is crucial here. They do implicitly tell the model what to do by encoding it in the reward function:

In Minecraft, the team used a protocol that gave Dreamer a ‘plus one’ reward every time it completed one of 12 progressive steps involved in diamond collection — including creating planks and a furnace, mining iron and forging an iron pickaxe.

This is also why I think the title of the article is slightly misleading.

From the second wiki article:

“… the soil and the lagoon water surrounding the structure now contain a higher level of radioactivity than the debris of the dome itself, so even in the event of a total collapse, the radiation dose delivered to the local resident population or marine environment should not change significantly.”

This is just insane.

You sure know the concept of incubation time. Barring infected persons from entering if they have no symptoms is not possible. And quarantining every single person who enters is also not possible.

I found it quite interesting, that crowdstrike actually exclude a bunch of services explicitly. They also basically say, don’t use, if it needs to be reliable. I don’t know if this is standard for software, but for me this was quite surprising.

From crowdstrike terms and services [1]: […] THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT THE OFFERINGS OR CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS WILL BE ERROR FREE, OR THAT THEY WILL OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR WILL FULFILL ANY OF CUSTOMER’S PARTICULAR PURPOSES OR NEEDS. THE OFFERINGS AND CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE NOT FAULT-TOLERANT AND ARE NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE IN ANY HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE OR OPERATION. NEITHER THE OFFERINGS NOR CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION, NUCLEAR FACILITIES, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, WEAPONS SYSTEMS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, OR ANY APPLICATION OR INSTALLATION WHERE FAILURE COULD RESULT IN DEATH, SEVERE PHYSICAL INJURY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE. Customer agrees that it is Customer’s responsibility to ensure safe use of an Offering and the CrowdStrike Tools in such applications and installations. CROWDSTRIKE DOES NOT WARRANT ANY THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.

[1] section 8.6 of https://www.crowdstrike.com/terms-conditions/

I would not disagree that you can do it, but I am skeptical that you can do it in 5 years.

Honda did develop their HF118 turbofan engine apparently from scratch, but it took about 8 years [1]. And for the actual commercialization they teamed up with GE and then it took another 10 years until certification of the successor HF120 [2].

[1] scroll down on https://global.honda/en/tech/eVTOL_gas_turbine_hybrid_system...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Honda_HF120

Just to add to this, only the two learning rates are changed, everything else including initialization and data is fixed. From the paper:

Training consists of 500 (sometimes 1000) iterations of full batch steepest gradient descent. Training is performed for a 2d grid of η0 and η1 hyperparameter values, with all other hyperparameters held fixed (including network initialization and training data).

No, it is not wrong. I think your statement comes from a rather short sighted view on scientific and technological developments. We need progress as a society and as humankind to develop and further advance our (currently rather poor) state of affairs (on a global scale). Be it technological (where new tech can actually improve stuff considerably) or 'just' on the understanding of things, i.e. knowledge'.

The comparatively small research budgets would not have any noteworthy impact on dysfunctional systems such as healthcare anyway.

EDIT: Actually, I am not pro this new CERN machine. I think, there are other scientific things where it would make more sense to fund them.