madez

Upshot: You use quantum mechanics to decide a classical potential for you (e.g. you chose the classical potential that factors into pairs such that each pair energy is 'closest' in the Hilbert space metric to the quantum rest) - Downside: You're missing the variance.

Couldn't the quantum mechanical state become multimodal such that the classical approximation picks a state that is far away from the physical reality?

And, couldn't this multimodality excaberate during the actual physical process and possibly arrive at a number of probable outcomes which are never predicted by the simulation? Is there more than hope that that doesn't happen?

This explanation is interesting. Thanks for sharing it. While reading it, I got the impression that the simulation is not fully quantum mechanical, but rather classical with select quantum mechanical effects.

Which parts of quantum mechanics are idealised away and how do we know that not including them won't significantly reduce the quality of the result?

Are you possibly using stochastical noise in the simulations and repeat them multiple times, in the hope that whatever disturbance caused by the idealisation of the model is covered by the noise?

I'm saying that copyright is unjust. It violates fundamental individual freedoms of people like freedom of expression to achieve goals that do not justify that mean, and is therefore illegitimate.

The comparison to laws that protect people is invalid because copyright does not protect people. It grants governmentally enforced monopolies. Copyright has a legitimate goal. There is a value in certain activities for society and copyright is a governments intervention to increase that activity.

There are other things that are considered so important that the government takes action to provide them, like for example social security, health services and infrastructure. That is realized by taxation. I'm suggesting that the state should use taxation to ensure the activity of those who rely now on copyright so the restrictions of individual fundamental freedoms is gone.

Note that copyright has become even more restrictive with time. There are situations where people are forbidden from singing a song on a birthday party in public. This is an example of where the unjust restriction of individual freedoms becomes apparent.

And I'm saying that this injustice in some situations is so grave, that we should show civil disobedience and try to break and mock copyright when possible as a form of protest.

Copyright does not deserve voluntary submission anyways. It is an unjust and ever stricter becoming legal framework to give life support to an industry that is unwilling to adjust to new technological realities.

RetroShare was removed from Debian in the past. Anybody any clues why?

It is not stealing. It may be illegal, but it isn't stealing nor robbery. You may be violating the copyright law, but nobody is taken away any object and there is no threat of violence. When people get access to copyrighted works, then at first, it is good for people. Only then the idea is that the creators can't make a living by producing those works. We can solve that differently, without using copyright. Copyright is a weirdly anti-market and authoritarian concept where the government artificially makes something scarce by punishing supply. In any case, distributing stuff is not stealing. /rant

"I'm just doing my job!"

The deflection of personal responsibility for damaging behaviour as part of a job is a cultural problem.

That's not what is said in the article of politico. Here is what is reported:

First, The allegation:

According to the article, Trump was trying to get the Tübingen-based CureVac company — which also has sites in Frankfurt and Boston — to move its research wing to the United States and develop the vaccine "for the U.S. only."

Then, the government acknowledgement:

A spokesperson for Germany's Health Ministry quoted in the article appeared to acknowledge the U.S. approach and said that Berlin was "very interested in ensuring that vaccines and active substances against the new coronavirus are also developed in Germany and Europe."

Who says this is incorrect? The alleged party? Because the company did not deny that it was approached by the US American government to sell exclusive access. It just denied that it will be bought, which is a different thing. Regarding the exclusivity it has declared that it will ensure that the vaccine will be available to the world, without neither confirming nor denying the allegation. The fact that they clarify that (source: https://www.curevac.com/news/curevac-focuses-on-the-developm...) the fact that the German government acted at all (multiple reports of that exist), and the fact that the CEO of the company was fired (the company has a press release about it) after meeting Trump are further evidence that indeed an exclusive deal was sought.

Who knew? Electing badly can have bad outcomes.

Here is a source that might be more acceptable for your palate: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-confirms-that-donald...

The company CureVac only denied rumours that it will be bought, it did nor deny claims that the Trump administration approached them and tried to buy exclusive access to the vaccine.

The reporting is matched by many very reputable broadcasters and confirmed by government officials on record.

No, they did not deny it. What they said is that they won't be bought. They did not deny that the Trump administration tried to get exclusive access.

I quote from the article: "US President Trump is attempting to entice a German lab to develop a vaccine exclusively for the US, a German newspaper reported."

You are sharing the conspiracy theory that the Trump administration did not in fact try to secure exclusive access to the vaccine.

The grandparent of your comment wasn't made from the same account as yours, so unless you use multiple accounts, I was not referring to you.

The conspiracy theory is that the German government conspired to spread a lie.

You are spreading a conspiracy theory. Please stop.

The rate of rule breaking comments was high. The other threads may give an impression, if you show dead comments.

Some are spreading the conspiracy theory that either the broadcasters and news outlets conspired to produced incorrect but matching reports, or that the German government intentionally spreads the lie that the Trump administration tried to secure exclusive access to the vaccine. It seems to me that Trump supporters want to shield his administration from reports that make it look bad.

This might be a clear case of a selection bias. When the quality of threads goes down, I tend to stay away from them and the moderators need to interact more with it. When a thread has a fantastic quality, I feel a urge to interact with it, to read it, while the moderation is not needed.

When many comments break side guidelines and the thread is wretched, then that feels odd and usual for me for HN. Probably you see more threads like this and it isn't unusual, but for me it feels not at all what I expect and relate to what I think happens on HN. This speaks for the quality of this site. Thanks for the info!

As distastrious as it might be that this may be part now of US American culture, it doesn't need to start happening here nor be tolerated. The nature of this place is that we can talk with reason and share facts based on evidence. If people seek to disturb that, for whatever reason, I advocate for corresponding moderation.

If that weren't the case, so if the Trump administration just wanted to invest and also have access to the vaccine, this wouldn't be news and just business as usual, and everybody would benefit from it. Also, that would not get the CEO fired, and the German government wouldn't engage in talks in this case. So the evidence strongly suggests that the reports from multiple sources are indeed correct.

The facts are in. The German government acknowledged reports and said it is engaged in talks. The company reacted and fired the responsible CEO on 2020-03-11, per the companies website. Before you judge reports, look at the available evidence.

Dang, would you mind taking a look at the behaviour in this thread? The content and the voting feels very odd and unusual.

China is run by an authoritarian extreme nationalistic government that tortures its citizen that dare to critise it. That is widely known. Europe will stay a close ally with the USA and the cooperation will resume to normality once the USA has recovered from its recent personality cult and government running on lies.

That didn't happen yesterday.

"On March 2, CureVac's then-CEO Daniel Menichella attended a meeting at the White House to discuss coronavirus vaccine development with Trump and members of his coronavirus taskforce.

On March 11, the company announced Menichella would be replaced by company founder Ingmar Hoerr, without giving a reason why."

Source: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-us-wrestle-over-coronaviru...

The meaning of what the quote is saying is clear. It is also clear how the logical reasoning is supposed to be. My - admittedly pedantic - point is that the choice of words is incorrect.

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.

The expression "by definition" is misplaced here. The first proposition "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place" is not a definition. At best, we can treat it as an axiom. In any case, the conclusion "if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are not smart enough to debug it" does not follow by definition.

Openness isn't binary. One significant step is support for the mainline Linux kernel. Another significant step is free information about the hardware on a high-level, such as PCB schematics and documentation about the used chips. Here are some projects that I'm aware of:

Mainline Linux:

https://pocket.popcorncomputer.com/

https://necunos.com/shop/

Mainline Linux + high-level hardware documentation:

https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/

https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

Even in an archaic the-winner-takes-all vote, the result reveals important information besides determining the winner. That information can influence other voters, vote options, and the winners behavior.

Unlike in some political systems, in the market the winner doesn't take all, but rather all receive their votes. Even then, I don't understand the psychology underlying the concept "discarded vote". I vote for what I think is best. To me that is what votes are all about. Is the psychological desire to be part of the winning group responsible?