Talking crap about a candidate is not voter fraud. Coordinating with one's own front runner when it is clear they are going to win is not voter fraud. You and I may object to some or all of these things, but that doesn't make it voter fraud. Moreover, part of the hacking here isn't just DNC emails but is actual attempts at hacking *election systems* which should bother you in any event.
The argument is not that "one would hack the US" but that fewer such events would occur if the US spent less resources on hacking others and more resources on security.
This is part of why things like Stuxnet are potentially bad. Even if you use a weapon for a cause that is just or good, each new introduction ups the ante. It is pretty clear that the US and its allies use of hacking and similar tools (I refuse to say "cyberweapons" because we're not yet in a dystopian scifi novel) has emboldened other actors to use them also. If the US instead put in nearly as much resources into making things secure as it does into breaking into things, the situation would look very different, and everyone would benefit.
First of all, this isn't unfalsifiable, it just has a very long time range for falsifiability. Second of all, even if one does think falsifiability is what matters (such as say Karl Popper) failure to be falsifiable makes something not science, it doesn't make something religion. Third, many claims are essentially unfalsifiable but would not be religious in nature. For example, there's a lot of physicists working on what happens to things inside black holes: most of that is essentially unfalsifiable. Similarly, we can see galaxies speeding away from us so that we will never have contact with them (because the space in between is expanding fast enough that new light will not reach us from those galaxies). Is it religion to suggest that those galaxies will still obey the same laws of physics as we do?
Your statement that one would need more than one started with to do a perfect simulation is accurate. This is morally what Holevo's theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holevo's_theorem and related results say. However, one doesn't need to do a perfect simulation. For example, one doesn't need to make nearly as detailed a simulation of the inside of planets or of the centers of stars, and if one is simulating a time period like the present, one doesn't even need to do that detailed a simulation of stars in general.
Completely missing the point. The actual argument for a simulation doesn't rest on anything remotely like that. The primary argument is that it looks like under the laws of physics, simulations should be possible. It also seems likely that an advanced species would be interested in making simulations of their ancestors and would likely make many such simulations. Thus, if one thinks that society is likely to survive to a very high tech level, one should expect if one is a remotely interesting time period that one is much more likely to be a simulation than the original. There are problems with this argument (and I don't buy it), but it is far more interesting than simply dismissing it as akin to belief in religion or gods. It is unfortunate that you and many others in this thread are simply ridiculing the argument rather than actually addressing it.
In general, quality of life has been going up, not just quantity of life. This is reflected for example in the average age of people being admitted to elderly homes going up.
Ah, I love political topics. In no other area on Slashdot do ACs get upmodded for saying things like "Fuck off, shill." To be clear: no one is claiming that agendas don't exist. But if one has repeatedly the same reactions to multiple respected fact-checkers, the problem may not be on the fact checker's side.
If Snopes and other fact checkers are repeatedly saying things you disagree with and don't like, you may want to consider that the problem is on your end. Rather than bash Snopes maybe you can supply what you think is relevant evidence. Do you either have any evidence that Robby Mook said anything of the sort, or have any evidence that Bock Becket worked for Hillary's campaign?
Some of the d-wave haters have moved onto the argument that the system isnt faster than a conventional one when the conventional one runs a "better" algorithm.. see the big paragraph above. "Better" means searches a different solution space and therefore cannot solve all the same problems.
Do you have any source or evidence for this? In particular, do you have examples of specific problem classes that the D-Wave machines can find the minimums for that where conventional systems cannot? Considering that any annealing system can be done by simulated annealing with minor tweaks on a classical computer if one is patient enough, this seems like a strange claim.
I know you are joking, but it is worth noting that a) most of the D-Wave skeptics are concerned about articles that portray D-Wave as practical right now or b) Are concerned because they see it as a lot of funding going to what they see as an unlikely to succeed research avenue when it could go to gate-based quantum computer research which is seen by most in the field as more promising.
If a cheap conventional computer works better at the same tasks then it
First these fucks said d-wave wasnt doing any quantum stuff.
Then these fucks said it was slower than conventional hardware.
Now these fucks say its still slower than conventional hardware if you use a different algorithms that wont solve the same set of problems...
This is not accurate. The first statement is that it wasn't clear that the D-Wave system was engaging in any quantum computation. That's still not clear. Part of the issue here is that it simply isn't completely clear what one means by quantum computation in this context. For example, your laptop's transistors use quantum mechanics in a critical fashion, but they aren't doing quantum computations. The question has always been twofold a) is non-trivial entanglement going on and b) is that entanglement being used to do processing that cannot be easily simulated on a classical system. Those are both strongly connected to questions of efficiency. Right now, the answer to a seems to be yes (although it took forever for the evidence to actually come out).
Your second two sentences are even more wrong. The fact is that it is slower than cheap conventional hardward if one *uses the best known classical algorithms*. That's being used to solve the same problems, as would be clear, if you read the link I gave.
Your insistence that one must use the "the same algorithms" to benchmark is also incredibly wrong in this context, since one cannot use the same algorithms on both at a fundamental level. D-Wave's system uses a variant of an annealing algorithm and cannot run classical algorithms in any meaningful way. In that context, the classical computers are in this sense essentially emulating an annealing process. If you insist that one must use the same algorithms rather than look actual time for solving problems, then the systems are simply incomparable. Actually looking at cost and time to solve problems makes more sense.
As someone else noted.. Google, NASA, etc must be complete idiots for not bowing to the clearly rational flying goalpost these fucks swing around.
Let's recall for a moment that the primary "fuck" you are talking about is Scott Aaronson who is one of the world's most respected quantum computing experts. He's responsible for many major results including the algebraization barrier http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/alg.pdf and the first substantially non-trivial lower bounds on the basic collision problem http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/collision.pdf among other work.
But let's for a moment think about what is going on with Google and NASA and consider other explanations that are relevant here. First, both Google and NASA both have major interests in basic research, and there's a valid basic research interest in what D-Wave is pursuing. (I personally consider it unlikely to go anywhere that useful compared to gate-based quantum computing research but that's a judgment call.) Moreover, large corporations and governments like fads: it doesn't take much for some mid-level manager to decide that quantum computing is a shining new thing and realize that the easiest way to jump on the bandwagon is to buy a D-Wave machine.
Someone downvoted you, possibly due to a lack of sourcing. So in case anyone is in doubt, they should look at this blog by Scott Aaronson http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555 and the discussion. Aaronson is one of the top quantum computing experts on the planet. The comments there are also very relevant. Alex Shelby notes that the algorithms that D-Wave has used to compare on conventional (classical) computers are substantially less efficient than the best classical algorithms. We are going to eventually have actual quantum computers, and when we do they will be awesome. Right now, it isn't clear that D-Wave's system can be reasonably called a quantum computer, and is even more clear that they aren't useful at all.
No. This is confused. You are confusing the classical ideas of an illusionary reality with a situation where we have *actual evidence* that relying on what we understand of the laws of physics, it is highly plausible that our descendants could make simulations. That's a very big and important difference in the sort of argument going on here.
The primary argument for a simulation is novel, it isn't the same as the classical questions because we now do have a line of evidence suggesting that improving computational power will eventually allow detailed simulations. The argument then goes that if this is the case, we should expect that future humans will given the opportunity be likely to on occasion simulate past humans to better understand history. If that's the case, then the probability of anyone who perceives themselves being in the early 21st century is actually simulated is high. There are problems with this argument, but it is not at all the same as classical issues about illusionary realities and the like.
The shuttle had a lot of problems which the Falcon 9 and its family avoid. The Shuttle was designed to go into almost any orbit and was designed with extremely high performance hydrogen fueled main engines. Both of these made for a lot of expense. The situations aren't that similar.
The argument that there's a high probability we live in a simulation has been seriously discussed by philosophers such as Nick Bostrom. See http://www.simulation-argument.com/. I disagree with the argument but it isn't by itself a wacky idea or one we should dismiss out of hand.
NASA went to the moon on a massive budget. A major part of SpaceX's goals is to *reduce* the cost of space travel. And they aren't aiming at the moon primarily because there aren't enough resources on the moon to easily have a self-sustaining colony.
A complete idiot who has made the first practical rocket with a recoverable first stage which is likely going to shortly go into use, has made successful electric cars which have pushed other companies into making similar autos. He may be overly ambitious here (and I suspect he is), but whatever his failings, he isn't an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
Talking crap about a candidate is not voter fraud. Coordinating with one's own front runner when it is clear they are going to win is not voter fraud. You and I may object to some or all of these things, but that doesn't make it voter fraud. Moreover, part of the hacking here isn't just DNC emails but is actual attempts at hacking *election systems* which should bother you in any event.
The argument is not that "one would hack the US" but that fewer such events would occur if the US spent less resources on hacking others and more resources on security.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to post these links.
This is part of why things like Stuxnet are potentially bad. Even if you use a weapon for a cause that is just or good, each new introduction ups the ante. It is pretty clear that the US and its allies use of hacking and similar tools (I refuse to say "cyberweapons" because we're not yet in a dystopian scifi novel) has emboldened other actors to use them also. If the US instead put in nearly as much resources into making things secure as it does into breaking into things, the situation would look very different, and everyone would benefit.
First of all, this isn't unfalsifiable, it just has a very long time range for falsifiability. Second of all, even if one does think falsifiability is what matters (such as say Karl Popper) failure to be falsifiable makes something not science, it doesn't make something religion. Third, many claims are essentially unfalsifiable but would not be religious in nature. For example, there's a lot of physicists working on what happens to things inside black holes: most of that is essentially unfalsifiable. Similarly, we can see galaxies speeding away from us so that we will never have contact with them (because the space in between is expanding fast enough that new light will not reach us from those galaxies). Is it religion to suggest that those galaxies will still obey the same laws of physics as we do?
Your statement that one would need more than one started with to do a perfect simulation is accurate. This is morally what Holevo's theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holevo's_theorem and related results say. However, one doesn't need to do a perfect simulation. For example, one doesn't need to make nearly as detailed a simulation of the inside of planets or of the centers of stars, and if one is simulating a time period like the present, one doesn't even need to do that detailed a simulation of stars in general.
Completely missing the point. The actual argument for a simulation doesn't rest on anything remotely like that. The primary argument is that it looks like under the laws of physics, simulations should be possible. It also seems likely that an advanced species would be interested in making simulations of their ancestors and would likely make many such simulations. Thus, if one thinks that society is likely to survive to a very high tech level, one should expect if one is a remotely interesting time period that one is much more likely to be a simulation than the original. There are problems with this argument (and I don't buy it), but it is far more interesting than simply dismissing it as akin to belief in religion or gods. It is unfortunate that you and many others in this thread are simply ridiculing the argument rather than actually addressing it.
How is this statement relevant to my comment?
In general, quality of life has been going up, not just quantity of life. This is reflected for example in the average age of people being admitted to elderly homes going up.
You mean like this piece by Ben Goldacre about how scientists aren't sharing data https://www.buzzfeed.com/bengoldacre/deworming-trials? Or this article encouraging people to take steps to avoid making more antibiotic resistant bacteria https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/stop-asking-your-doctor-for-antibiotics? Buzzfeed has a lot of clickbait, but some very good articles on occasion, and they don't have "fake" news. You can argue that a lot of it is obnoxious listicles, but that's a very different claim.
Ah, I love political topics. In no other area on Slashdot do ACs get upmodded for saying things like "Fuck off, shill." To be clear: no one is claiming that agendas don't exist. But if one has repeatedly the same reactions to multiple respected fact-checkers, the problem may not be on the fact checker's side.
If Snopes and other fact checkers are repeatedly saying things you disagree with and don't like, you may want to consider that the problem is on your end. Rather than bash Snopes maybe you can supply what you think is relevant evidence. Do you either have any evidence that Robby Mook said anything of the sort, or have any evidence that Bock Becket worked for Hillary's campaign?
There's a clear subset of Trump fans that are extremely authoritarian https://psmag.com/donald-trump-s-appeal-to-the-authoritarian-personality-b5a0e8820a6e#.l9khk8wf5 and Trump supporters in the primaries were on average more authoritarian than supporters of other Republican candidate http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533 but this isn't all Trump supporters. Moreover, the evidence here suggests a Denial of Service attack by a small set of coordinated people, so it really doesn't say much about Trump supporters as a whole.
Some of the d-wave haters have moved onto the argument that the system isnt faster than a conventional one when the conventional one runs a "better" algorithm .. see the big paragraph above. "Better" means searches a different solution space and therefore cannot solve all the same problems.
Do you have any source or evidence for this? In particular, do you have examples of specific problem classes that the D-Wave machines can find the minimums for that where conventional systems cannot? Considering that any annealing system can be done by simulated annealing with minor tweaks on a classical computer if one is patient enough, this seems like a strange claim.
I know you are joking, but it is worth noting that a) most of the D-Wave skeptics are concerned about articles that portray D-Wave as practical right now or b) Are concerned because they see it as a lot of funding going to what they see as an unlikely to succeed research avenue when it could go to gate-based quantum computer research which is seen by most in the field as more promising.
First these fucks said d-wave wasnt doing any quantum stuff. Then these fucks said it was slower than conventional hardware. Now these fucks say its still slower than conventional hardware if you use a different algorithms that wont solve the same set of problems...
This is not accurate. The first statement is that it wasn't clear that the D-Wave system was engaging in any quantum computation. That's still not clear. Part of the issue here is that it simply isn't completely clear what one means by quantum computation in this context. For example, your laptop's transistors use quantum mechanics in a critical fashion, but they aren't doing quantum computations. The question has always been twofold a) is non-trivial entanglement going on and b) is that entanglement being used to do processing that cannot be easily simulated on a classical system. Those are both strongly connected to questions of efficiency. Right now, the answer to a seems to be yes (although it took forever for the evidence to actually come out).
Your second two sentences are even more wrong. The fact is that it is slower than cheap conventional hardward if one *uses the best known classical algorithms*. That's being used to solve the same problems, as would be clear, if you read the link I gave.
Your insistence that one must use the "the same algorithms" to benchmark is also incredibly wrong in this context, since one cannot use the same algorithms on both at a fundamental level. D-Wave's system uses a variant of an annealing algorithm and cannot run classical algorithms in any meaningful way. In that context, the classical computers are in this sense essentially emulating an annealing process. If you insist that one must use the same algorithms rather than look actual time for solving problems, then the systems are simply incomparable. Actually looking at cost and time to solve problems makes more sense.
As someone else noted.. Google, NASA, etc must be complete idiots for not bowing to the clearly rational flying goalpost these fucks swing around.
Let's recall for a moment that the primary "fuck" you are talking about is Scott Aaronson who is one of the world's most respected quantum computing experts. He's responsible for many major results including the algebraization barrier http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/alg.pdf and the first substantially non-trivial lower bounds on the basic collision problem http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/collision.pdf among other work.
But let's for a moment think about what is going on with Google and NASA and consider other explanations that are relevant here. First, both Google and NASA both have major interests in basic research, and there's a valid basic research interest in what D-Wave is pursuing. (I personally consider it unlikely to go anywhere that useful compared to gate-based quantum computing research but that's a judgment call.) Moreover, large corporations and governments like fads: it doesn't take much for some mid-level manager to decide that quantum computing is a shining new thing and realize that the easiest way to jump on the bandwagon is to buy a D-Wave machine.
Someone downvoted you, possibly due to a lack of sourcing. So in case anyone is in doubt, they should look at this blog by Scott Aaronson http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555 and the discussion. Aaronson is one of the top quantum computing experts on the planet. The comments there are also very relevant. Alex Shelby notes that the algorithms that D-Wave has used to compare on conventional (classical) computers are substantially less efficient than the best classical algorithms. We are going to eventually have actual quantum computers, and when we do they will be awesome. Right now, it isn't clear that D-Wave's system can be reasonably called a quantum computer, and is even more clear that they aren't useful at all.
Compare http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ and http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/. Hillary has around 15% of her statements as False or Pants on Fire, while Trump has over half his statements as False or Pants on fire. Facts matter more than you how you feel. Hillary isn't the most honest politician, but compared to Trump she's a paragon.
No. This is confused. You are confusing the classical ideas of an illusionary reality with a situation where we have *actual evidence* that relying on what we understand of the laws of physics, it is highly plausible that our descendants could make simulations. That's a very big and important difference in the sort of argument going on here.
The primary argument for a simulation is novel, it isn't the same as the classical questions because we now do have a line of evidence suggesting that improving computational power will eventually allow detailed simulations. The argument then goes that if this is the case, we should expect that future humans will given the opportunity be likely to on occasion simulate past humans to better understand history. If that's the case, then the probability of anyone who perceives themselves being in the early 21st century is actually simulated is high. There are problems with this argument, but it is not at all the same as classical issues about illusionary realities and the like.
Massively reducing the production of CO2 and other gasses which contribute to global warming and climate change.
The shuttle had a lot of problems which the Falcon 9 and its family avoid. The Shuttle was designed to go into almost any orbit and was designed with extremely high performance hydrogen fueled main engines. Both of these made for a lot of expense. The situations aren't that similar.
The argument that there's a high probability we live in a simulation has been seriously discussed by philosophers such as Nick Bostrom. See http://www.simulation-argument.com/. I disagree with the argument but it isn't by itself a wacky idea or one we should dismiss out of hand.
NASA went to the moon on a massive budget. A major part of SpaceX's goals is to *reduce* the cost of space travel. And they aren't aiming at the moon primarily because there aren't enough resources on the moon to easily have a self-sustaining colony.
Elon Musk is a complete idiot.
A complete idiot who has made the first practical rocket with a recoverable first stage which is likely going to shortly go into use, has made successful electric cars which have pushed other companies into making similar autos. He may be overly ambitious here (and I suspect he is), but whatever his failings, he isn't an idiot.