Unfortunately, some of the cameras recently reported for "smart phones" are reported to work through the screen. (I'm not sure this is the "notch", though I suppose it could be marketing speech for that.)
If this is doing what the article said, then it might be a bit difficult to cover the camera.
I'm not arguing with the rest of your post, but I wouldn't be certain about them not taking over the world. Considering it likely is probably wrong, but it's not implausible.
OK. I suppose he's opposed to birth control. But I wasn't willing to give him a click to find out.
OTOH, there are legitimate reasons why the world might run out of people. It might be due to a universal plague that caused either sterility or was fatal. It might be due to a complex interaction of environmental insults (mainly chemical) that would cause a tremendous increase in miscarriages. WWIII might do it.
OTOH, even if the human population were reduced to zero, the world wouldn't run out of people, because the world doesn't need people. It's totally the other way around.
OK. But by that argument the FCC shouldn't have the right to regulate use of frequencies that are not powerful enough to be detected in another state.
I think I like that. Regulating that should be up to the various state governments, and Alaska would rightfully have a different set of rules than Rhode Island.
FWIW, I know how to swap a tire, though I'm not sure about those toys they use instead of spare tires these days, but I'm not about to do that at the side of the freeway. Or on a steep hill. (And for this "steep" includes things I'd barely notice while walking.) And the jacks in some of these cars shouldn't be trusted by anyone for any job at all.
Whether they can walk shouldn't be the deciding factor. The deciding factors should be visual acuity and reaction time.
OTOH, I pulled my license when I realized I was programming while driving. The accident was ruled "no fault", but I disagreed. So it's not *just* reaction time and visual acuity.
While that's a real problem, and lots of people are looking at it (without much political muscle), it's also true that the current level of automation is begging for this scenario to happen even to people optimally up on their sleep.
The question is, "How to deal with it?", and different manufacturers are taking different approaches. So far none of the approaches are very fault tolerant.
It could be, and I expect that Telsa is investigating right now. But that's not my expectation. The current level of automation is just begging for this to be a common scenario. (Unless, of course, reclining the driver's seat would stop the car.)
I'm not sure it was good intentions. Clinton had a lot of prior experience with how financial gangs operate, and the result was predictable. Whether he foresaw it or not I couldn't say.
(I can say it was predictable, because lots of people predicted it. They didn't know just when the crash would come, but they knew it was coming.)
Different problems, but both are convinced they are good drivers. The 20-somethings take reckless chances and depend on fast reflexes...which aren't always fast enough. And sometimes they depend on the other driver also having fast reflexes. The elderly have poor perception of the situation and slow reflexes. They're generally cautious, but are often in situations where being slow and cautious is dangerously reckless.
Question: If you're driving in a dense fog on a freeway, what's the safest speed? (There are lots of other analogous circumstances, where the answer depends on what the other folks are doing.)
When my father lost his license, he didn't stop driving. And it was impossible to convince him (Altzheimer's). Hiding the keys only worked until he found a set.
A few years after that he was finally hospitalized, but it should have happened earlier. I still remember him trying to seduce my wife in front of my mother (his wife). He'd gotten so that he couldn't stand up, but he couldn't remember that. He still thought he was a good driver.
Every interpretation of quantum physics predicts the same experimental results, but the interpretation of them is less clear. And the English translation of the math differs wildly depending on which interpretation you use.
Given the size of the keypad on my "smart-phone" I'm actually grateful the the phone's autocomplete. It may get things wrong most of the time, but when I try to type I get the wrong letter(s) more often than not. Sometimes it seems like typing one letter causes three keys to be struck.
Actually, in the most recent versions of Python type can be specified at compile time. They're still working on making it require that the type offered match the type required, though. I suspect doing it efficiently enough it proving quite difficult.
Sorry, that was snide, but "learn to code" is really stupid advice to give to someone who was professionally a journalist. The thought processes involved are quite divergent.
If you were paying attention, he either had (or simulated) an off by one error when posting the problems. (He said there were two, and then listed three.) (Of course, there's pretty strong indications that that error was simulated rather than real. But the way these parenthesis split things up reflects a real "off by one" error in my composition.)
Well, it's a preliminary lab result, so it doesn't promise anything directly. But it indicates that quantum states can be maintained indefinitely, and this has strong relationship to scaling quantum computing. I'm rather sure, however, that any quantum computer would use a different source of entanglement.
Somehow it always seems to be the case that "theoretical promises of secure communication are always broken by the actual implementation". So this shouldn't be a surprise. Merely unwelcome.
One thing it means (claims...not really tested, but certainly made plausible) is that quantum uncertainty can persist in ways that are macroscopically significant.
To me this is an argument in favor of the EWG multiworld interpretation of quantum physics, but I'm no expert, and others may well see this as an argument in favor of some other interpretation. That I can't see this as favoring the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't mean that someone else can't.
OTOH, one needs to remember that an interpretation is just that, and doesn't in and of itself predict any particular physical realization. This is therefore either consistent with all the existing interpretations (I think it is), or it's inconsistent with all of them. But to me long term stable uncertain states argue against the Copenhagen interpretation. (But, that said, I don't like that interpretation anyway, so I'm biased.)
P.S.: To answer your question more directly, it makes quantum computing at scale much more plausible.
IIUC, the law as written only applies the punishment to the actual person (not the legal person) making the claim. Got to admit I'm not clear on details, and IFAIK there haven't been many (any?) court cases to test this.
Slashdot Mirror
The mercury threat of home thermostats was not to the user, or not significantly. It was when you disposed of it.
Unfortunately, some of the cameras recently reported for "smart phones" are reported to work through the screen. (I'm not sure this is the "notch", though I suppose it could be marketing speech for that.)
If this is doing what the article said, then it might be a bit difficult to cover the camera.
I'm not arguing with the rest of your post, but I wouldn't be certain about them not taking over the world. Considering it likely is probably wrong, but it's not implausible.
OK. I suppose he's opposed to birth control. But I wasn't willing to give him a click to find out.
OTOH, there are legitimate reasons why the world might run out of people. It might be due to a universal plague that caused either sterility or was fatal. It might be due to a complex interaction of environmental insults (mainly chemical) that would cause a tremendous increase in miscarriages. WWIII might do it.
OTOH, even if the human population were reduced to zero, the world wouldn't run out of people, because the world doesn't need people. It's totally the other way around.
Perhaps the problem is the other possible sources of information.
It could be that the UN actually *is* more reliable than the alternatives.
Yiii! Really? I'm impressed that something that bad is available. It sounds as if it should only be run in a VM, if then.
Probably twice that (you need to go both up and down). Still not too bad.
OK. But by that argument the FCC shouldn't have the right to regulate use of frequencies that are not powerful enough to be detected in another state.
I think I like that. Regulating that should be up to the various state governments, and Alaska would rightfully have a different set of rules than Rhode Island.
FWIW, I know how to swap a tire, though I'm not sure about those toys they use instead of spare tires these days, but I'm not about to do that at the side of the freeway. Or on a steep hill. (And for this "steep" includes things I'd barely notice while walking.) And the jacks in some of these cars shouldn't be trusted by anyone for any job at all.
Whether they can walk shouldn't be the deciding factor. The deciding factors should be visual acuity and reaction time.
OTOH, I pulled my license when I realized I was programming while driving. The accident was ruled "no fault", but I disagreed. So it's not *just* reaction time and visual acuity.
While that's a real problem, and lots of people are looking at it (without much political muscle), it's also true that the current level of automation is begging for this scenario to happen even to people optimally up on their sleep.
The question is, "How to deal with it?", and different manufacturers are taking different approaches. So far none of the approaches are very fault tolerant.
It could be, and I expect that Telsa is investigating right now. But that's not my expectation. The current level of automation is just begging for this to be a common scenario. (Unless, of course, reclining the driver's seat would stop the car.)
I'm not sure it was good intentions. Clinton had a lot of prior experience with how financial gangs operate, and the result was predictable. Whether he foresaw it or not I couldn't say.
(I can say it was predictable, because lots of people predicted it. They didn't know just when the crash would come, but they knew it was coming.)
Different problems, but both are convinced they are good drivers. The 20-somethings take reckless chances and depend on fast reflexes...which aren't always fast enough. And sometimes they depend on the other driver also having fast reflexes. The elderly have poor perception of the situation and slow reflexes. They're generally cautious, but are often in situations where being slow and cautious is dangerously reckless.
Question: If you're driving in a dense fog on a freeway, what's the safest speed? (There are lots of other analogous circumstances, where the answer depends on what the other folks are doing.)
My guess is 5 years, though fully autonomous is probably closer to 10. And that's really annoying, because I no longer drive.
When my father lost his license, he didn't stop driving. And it was impossible to convince him (Altzheimer's). Hiding the keys only worked until he found a set.
A few years after that he was finally hospitalized, but it should have happened earlier. I still remember him trying to seduce my wife in front of my mother (his wife). He'd gotten so that he couldn't stand up, but he couldn't remember that. He still thought he was a good driver.
But what does it mean? How do you interpret it?
Every interpretation of quantum physics predicts the same experimental results, but the interpretation of them is less clear. And the English translation of the math differs wildly depending on which interpretation you use.
Given the size of the keypad on my "smart-phone" I'm actually grateful the the phone's autocomplete. It may get things wrong most of the time, but when I try to type I get the wrong letter(s) more often than not. Sometimes it seems like typing one letter causes three keys to be struck.
Actually, in the most recent versions of Python type can be specified at compile time. They're still working on making it require that the type offered match the type required, though. I suspect doing it efficiently enough it proving quite difficult.
Maybe they used to be a journalist?
Sorry, that was snide, but "learn to code" is really stupid advice to give to someone who was professionally a journalist. The thought processes involved are quite divergent.
If you were paying attention, he either had (or simulated) an off by one error when posting the problems. (He said there were two, and then listed three.) (Of course, there's pretty strong indications that that error was simulated rather than real. But the way these parenthesis split things up reflects a real "off by one" error in my composition.)
Well, it's a preliminary lab result, so it doesn't promise anything directly. But it indicates that quantum states can be maintained indefinitely, and this has strong relationship to scaling quantum computing. I'm rather sure, however, that any quantum computer would use a different source of entanglement.
Somehow it always seems to be the case that "theoretical promises of secure communication are always broken by the actual implementation". So this shouldn't be a surprise. Merely unwelcome.
One thing it means (claims...not really tested, but certainly made plausible) is that quantum uncertainty can persist in ways that are macroscopically significant.
To me this is an argument in favor of the EWG multiworld interpretation of quantum physics, but I'm no expert, and others may well see this as an argument in favor of some other interpretation. That I can't see this as favoring the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't mean that someone else can't.
OTOH, one needs to remember that an interpretation is just that, and doesn't in and of itself predict any particular physical realization. This is therefore either consistent with all the existing interpretations (I think it is), or it's inconsistent with all of them. But to me long term stable uncertain states argue against the Copenhagen interpretation. (But, that said, I don't like that interpretation anyway, so I'm biased.)
P.S.: To answer your question more directly, it makes quantum computing at scale much more plausible.
IIUC, the law as written only applies the punishment to the actual person (not the legal person) making the claim. Got to admit I'm not clear on details, and IFAIK there haven't been many (any?) court cases to test this.