mescalelf t1_jefe222 wrote

You respect us? You’ll be telling us that as you slot six shells into your mossberg and blow us away.

And statistics show that children of LGBTQ couples are generally at least as mentally healthy as their peers.


mescalelf t1_je3htdl wrote

Not quite the right nomenclature (wording), but wording is often less important than content—and on the content of your question, you’re right.

Unlike digital computers, quantum computers don’t reliably output the right answer—even when they work as well as (we think) they possibly could. Instead, they give a distribution (over multiple runs) of correct and incorrect outputs. , These average out to the right answer if the computation is repeated some number of times.

However, quantum computers produce incorrect outputs much more frequently if a quantum computation is interrupted by some interaction—e.g. a thermal photon. It doesn’t take very much interaction to cause “decoherence”, so many types of quantum computer (including the most popular) have to be cooled to extremely low temperatures. There’s also active research on computational ways of improving fault-tolerance/error-tolerance…unfortunately, even with such methods, thousands of qubits are required to do useful computations. Even with aggressive cooling, none of our quantum computers have been able to hit the necessary qubit counts yet.

Quantum computers aren’t really very impressive or useful with low numbers of qubits. The computational power of digital computers scales roughly linearly with respect to the number of computational transistors. The representational complexity of a quantum computer doubles each time a qubit is added; this doesn’t translate nicely to equivalent computational power, but quantum computers do still have much steeper (exponential) scaling for some types of computational problem. Unfortunately, systems of many entangled qubits are much less stable than smaller entangled systems…so we can’t make good use of quantum computers until we can improve coherence time and/or fault tolerance a good deal.


mescalelf t1_je30cw9 wrote

Yep, it’s a joke; no way it’s gonna do anything useful except act as a training platform that could be just as easily simulated with digital simulation, as you point out.

They’d be better off applying machine learning (in the vein of AlphaFold 2, for instance) on a digital computer for serious R&D.

Well, unless they’ve made one hell of a breakthrough regarding coherence time. Even then, 20 qubits isn’t exactly a lot to work with.


mescalelf t1_jd1j943 wrote

And America is presently suffering from outbreaks of eugenicist rhetoric, actual neonazi movements, kleptocracy.

And America is home to by the three most successful AI-development teams (Google, OpenAI, Microsoft).

And America is already working on enormous offensive drone swarms

Not that drone swarms are by any means the only tool they could use.


mescalelf t1_jd1ctis wrote

They could roll out next-gen LLM-powered disinformation/agitation bots and rapidly turn people across the world against their neighbors over all sorts of locally-contentious topics—and LLMs are capable of accounting for that context.

Why do most of the dirty work with physical (autonomous) weapons when you can just get your “enemies” (us) to kill each other? Then it’s just a matter of mopping up. This doesn’t even necessarily take a massive conspiracy, either, as it’s a lot easier to covertly “stockpile” computing power + bandwidth than to stockpile drones or other autonomous weapons.


mescalelf t1_j94m5fx wrote

I have to wonder if kids with poor executive function and inattentiveness/hyperactivity are more likely to be abused (hence higher ACEs), resulting in elevated risk for BPD.

I also have to wonder if the poor executive function and inattentiveness/hyperactivity are temporally preceded by increased ACEs—in other words, I wonder if ACEs might cause some of the ADHD-like features.

It’s also possible that neither is true (in which case both are probably just risk factors), or that both are true (in which case they all interrelate).

I’m not a researcher in developmental psychology, so I…really don’t know enough to answer my own queries.


mescalelf t1_ixkgzvy wrote

Microwave LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), known as a MASER—same acronym, but Microwave instead of Light. In practice, a MASER is a type of LASER. We can use them to transmit energy (in the form of photons), which may then be absorbed by some kind of receiving transducer. In the case of beam-transmission of power, the receiving transducer is an antenna—most likely a very large array of ‘em.