I agree with the general sentiment. My own answer to this was something called "concept programming", which focuses on the translation of ideas into code. The following presentation gives an outline of what this means and a few early results: http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Con....
From that I derived a concept programming language called XL, https://github.com/c3d/XL. Which keeps evolving too fast to ever stabilize. Two semi-stable variants emerged, however, one called Tao3D for interactive real-time animations (http://tao3d.sourceforge.net), one for distributed programming and the Internet of Things (https://github.com/c3d/elfe).
Both variants demonstrate, technically, how well the concept programming approach works, and how well it answers the original posters questions. However, nobody cares. None of these languages ever reached a "good enough" status, i.e. a status where you can really make a living out of programming them.
I'm still working on this, though, and I still believe that the original idea is sound. It just needs more focus on execution, ironing out all the details (e.g. having a complete runtime support library), building a community, etc, things I never really had enough resources to do well enough.
The poster posits a very materialistic view as being self-evident. In reality, it's very restrictive.
Postulating that there is no soul but only a physical state of gray matter is a bit like postulating that there is no software but only bit states in the transistors of a computer. It seems self-evident, and it's true in a very restricted sense. But at the same time, it's clearly the best way to completely misunderstand what software or soul are.
In France, for a couple of years, we had a "Camp d'été décolonial" (Uncolonial Summer Camp, I kid you not) organized for people who have to suffer "institutional state racism", which is interpreted as "anybody but white". See https://www.marianne.net/socie....
I am all against racism. But you don't fight racism against black people by making a virtue of racism against white people.
A few years back, I stopped using Firefox after Brendan Eich was attacked and ultimately evicted from his role as Mozilla CEO just for having dared giving $1000 to proposition 8 a few years earlier.
I left Twitter and Facebook a few months ago after witnessing active censorship and speech control myself, and noticed that these companies were obviously using political orientation as a primary criterion for account suspension. Based on my experience, leaning right put your accounts more at risk than harassing or assaulting women on-line, or even blatantly recruiting for ISIS.
Now I have to consider replacing Google with alternatives too for the same kind of bullshit?
All these are attacks on freedom of though and freedom of speech, plain and simple. What's wrong with Silicon Valley? Do you think freedom is an option or what?
So attributing "the gender gap in technology to biology-based differences in abilities" is "allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions", but it's somehow OK to write that "male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature"? The way that whole thing is playing si a good example of applying a ridiculous amount of social pressure to ignore actual data or belittle minority opinions.
Yes, it's intended to be similarly short. Compared to the BSD makefiles, what's new is the configuration step. Compared to automake, it's that it does not require a (lengthy) makefile generation phase to run first.
There are also drawbacks, obviously. Autoconf and automake are more feature-complete. But for simple projects, it's probably a good choice.
One thing is that they take forever to run. On a project I currently work on, Spice, autoconf and automake take over 70s, the build takes about 20s. So we are at the point where auto-configuration takes longer than actual compilation.
The "bots" seems to be an excuse for Facebook and Twitter to target a number of high-visibility anti-Macron accounts. I have witnessed that myself, as one of my accounts was flagged as "bot" after I retweeted something about the #MacronLeaks. But for about three days, I had seen signs of accounts being targeted, and they were all anti-Macron accounts (I followed both sides and had probably about as many subscriptions in one camp and in the other). Hate from the pro-Macron account (of which I witnessed a lot personally) did not trigger any reaction that I could see.
On Twitter, the symptoms were that the targeted account was suspended for an alleged violation of the rules. What rule was violated is really unclear in the message. The rules are also sufficiently vaguely worded that anything is possible. What do you call "hate speech", for example? Does an obvious dislike for a presidential candidate qualify as "hate"? Does a video of pro-Macron supporters insulting Le Pen qualify as hate? If so, hate of whom? In any case, I saw several reports, all from anti-Macron accounts. And then my own account was suspended. And frankly, I don't see any rule I could possibly have violated, unless "retweeting both anti-Macron and anti-Le Pen twits makes you a general-purpose hater" is one of them.
On Facebook, things were more sneaky. Apparently, Facebook disabled the admin accounts for a large number of pro-Le Pen pages. It was later reported that this was in reaction to the #MacronLeaks being considered as propagating fake news. But I saw the first reports the day before the Macron leaks, so this is just an excuse. Again, all the reports I saw of accounts being the target of this shutdown came from anti-Macron or pro-Le Pen accounts (this is not the same thing), despite the bad behaviours being, as far as I can tell, equally well balanced between both sides (maybe even with a bit more hate on the Macron side, IMHO).
In any case, these attempts at controlling speech a few days before elections was the last straw for me. I disagree with the ideas of Macron as much as I despise many aspects of Le Pen program. But in my scale of what matters, free speech is even above that. So I closed my Twitter and Facebook accounts, and will probably be very happy without being a Facebook product or a Twitter ad-generator.
It's a score of 89 on the DxO Mark Mobile, which is presently the highest for a smartphone. See complete review here: https://www.dxomark.com/Mobile....
Actually, this is one possible way to interpret the Bible. That we are children, that the rules of the game are this and that, that some specific characters seem to play slightly outside normal rules (seeing the future, walking on water, not dying, etc). And that in the end, we win or we lose.
So I'd say that between this and near-death-experience testimonies, we have pretty strong clues that we are not in what Musk calls the "base reality".
One thing where I'd differ from Musk, though, is believing that the "base reality" is like ours. The rules could be completely different.
Any language can replicate this, and in a similar number of lines of code (given that the functionality available in a similar library).
Of course not. How do you implement a C or C++ library so that a variable or function declared on one computer is transparently used on another? In ELIoT, you can write this:
Var -> "Declared on original computer" tell "pi.local",
writeln "The value of Var is ", Var
So let me try in C or C++, where the code inside "tell" is supposed to execute on another machine called "pi.local":
#include "eliot-like-lib.h"
int main() {
char *Var = "Declared on original computer";
tell("pi.local", { printf ("The value of Var is %s\n", Var); }); }
This is syntactically invalid, and I see no easy way to make it syntactically valid C or C++ . The closest I can think of are Apple's blocks. So you could write ^ { printf (...); } instead, which is no big deal. But then. How do you capture the value of Var and send it over?
In order for this to work, you need a fully homoiconic language, where you can transmit the code and its data over the wire, and where there is a way to reconstruct it on the other side reliably so that you can execute there. I'm not saying you can't modify C to get there, but certainly not easily. And in any case, it's not just a library, and not in any language.
How can something like that be said for a new programming language whose project was just announced this month, and is currently little more than a laboratory curiosity?
By testing it. Tested with 1000 clients against a single Raspberry Pi. So that's "hundreds".
Security has been considered, but is not implemented at this stage.
The planned security model is to show only those features that are available to a given user. Say that temperature is available to anybody, but self_destruct requires a special privilege. Then anybody connecting to the device can request "temperature" and gets a response, but "self_destruct" is not even in the symbol table, so no way to access it. Trying to use it results in a run-time error, just as if you had tried to call schtroumpf.
If you want to access a privileged feature, you do something like import "self_destruct". And that checks if you are allowed to import it or not. If you are, then your symbol table is populated with self_destruct and you can call it. Otherwise, run-time error as above. This is not implemented yet, but is definitely on my to-do list.
Another validation that I plan to implement is the validation of "reply" code. Since you sent the code including the possible "reply" values, you can check on return that only a valid reply is sent, and reject any reply code that does not match one you sent.
Regarding encryption, I'm still thinking. I'd like something very lightweight for performance reasons, e.g. XOR with a one-time pad.
The language alone is not good enough, but it is simple to share. By contrast, building a complete web browser today is a bit difficult, and even a smaller "graphic" language like Tao3D is not that easy to build, in particular if you include all the dependencies. For Tao3D, you need Qt with WebKit, OpenGL, VLC, XLR, LLVM and I forget half a dozen. So I think that exposing the language-only part is interesting. For a while, Tao3D was the same project as XLR, but we decided to split early on. We wanted XLR to remain a non-graphical, non-reactive, non-networked, easy to port language.
While Go and Swift are interesting incremental improvements, they are not taking into account what we learned about programming languages. In many ways, these two languages seem firmly stuck in the 1980s. For example, Go has no generics, and as far as I can tell, Swift still does not have the kind of true generic types I introduced in XL in 2000, i.e. the possibility to call "ordered" all types that have a less than, and then define functions with "ordered" instead of having to use <T> all over the place just like in C++ (and please, could we stop using angle brackets?)
More generally, there was a lot to be learned from more dynamic languages deriving from Lisp. Being able to treat code as data (homoiconicity) completely changes things. It means your language can be extended in itself, just like Lisp integrated object-oriented capabilities effortlessly. It means you can do metaprogramming, introspection, reflection, dynamic code generation, in a natural way rather than with specialised ad-hoc features. All things that Go or Swift spectacularly fail to do.
I fail to see benefits of a similar order of magnitude with Swift or Go, and it annoys me. Companies like Apple and Google have the means, if only the financial ones, to make bigger things happen, in particular when smaller teams like ours already did a lot of investigative work.
I'm crazy enough to believe I have found a path to unification that is actually quite simple: add a new relativity principle that states that laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the measurement instrument we use. Here is a parallel:
- Special relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of your state of motion. So a complete description of an experiment must include which referential you are using. There is no absolute space, no absolute time, no aether. And we need to add new transformation laws from one referential to the next, which are Lorentz transforms.
- General relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of acceleration. So a complete description of an experiment must include accelerations, including gravitation. There is no flat space-time anymore, but something that is curved by gravitation fields. So we need to add new transformations from one curved space-time to another, use tensor math, covariant and contravariant quadrivectors, etc.
- My still incomplete theory of incomplete measurements (TIM) states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the measurement instruments used. So a complete description of an experiment must include which instruments were used, including calibration and range. Just because two instruments are calibrated to coincide on a given range cannot be used to postulate that they match at any scale. Space, time, mass and other measurements are no longer continuous, but discrete (because all our physical instruments give discrete results). We need to add new transformation when going from one physical instrument to another, which correspond almost exactly to renormalisation in quantum mechanics, but give an explanation as to their origin.
The TIM focuses on what I learn about a system using a physical measurement instrument. This starts by defining what an instrument is: - It's a portion of the universe (i.e. it's not "outside the matrix") - which has an input and an output (e.g. the probe and the display of a voltmeter) - where changes in the state at the input yield a change in the state of the output (change in voltage result in changes on the display) - which ideally depend only on the input (the voltmeter picks the voltage at the probe, not somewhere else) - and change the output (nothing being said about the change in the input, since even macro-scale experiments can be destructive) - the change in the output being mapped to a mathematical representation (often a real number) through a calibration
The instrument gives me knowledge about the state at the input. Since the instrument has a limited number of states in the output, my knowledge of the system through this instrument at any given time is described by a probability for each of the possible states. If I have N states, the probabilities p_1...p_N are all positive, and their sum is 1. So the knowledge state can be represented by a unit vector in dimension N.
For example, if I care about "is there a particle here", the possible measurements are "yes" and "no". The knowledge state is therefore represented by a unit complex number. If now you want to answer that on a plate with 1 million possible positions, you have a field of 1 million complex numbers, with the additional constraint that the particle must be at only one position (which is expressed as the sum of the probabilities for all "yes" being 1). That field is remarkably similar to the wave function, and this reasoning explains why it is complex-valued, why it is a probability of presence, and why it collapses when you know where the particle is.
But the primary difference with QM and GTR is that space-time is no longer continuous. It is discrete, and the discretization depends on the instrument being used. Because it is discrete, there are never any theoretical infinities in the sums you compute (these infinities being the reason why QM and GTR are considered fundamentally incompatib
that thorium reactor is fission, not fusion. Not exactly interchangeable.
Obviously, which is why I wrote thorium / fusion, with a slash. You want the combo. Jumpstarting a fusion-only reactor from the wireless power line? That takes forever! Last time I checked, you need at least two to three frigging minutes!
A thorium reactor, on the other hand, is a good little backup, underpowered, sure, but largely enough to fire up a Fusion Drive 6G almost instantly. Also, many small thorium generators fit in your pocket, whereas even the latest Mr Fusion are big enough that you need a car to haul them around. So when I want a senso-holomovie on the beach, I always carry a little thorium booster with me, just drop it n the seawater for a few seconds, and I'm good to go!
Also, I forgot something essential in my list. You probably want a temporal adjustment controller. I just realized mine is on the fritz, and I'm no longer sure which year I'm in. Can you imagine if you make a mistake and talk about recent technology to, say, early 21st century Slashdotters? That would be cruel.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the general sentiment. My own answer to this was something called "concept programming", which focuses on the translation of ideas into code. The following presentation gives an outline of what this means and a few early results: http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Con....
From that I derived a concept programming language called XL, https://github.com/c3d/XL. Which keeps evolving too fast to ever stabilize. Two semi-stable variants emerged, however, one called Tao3D for interactive real-time animations (http://tao3d.sourceforge.net), one for distributed programming and the Internet of Things (https://github.com/c3d/elfe).
Both variants demonstrate, technically, how well the concept programming approach works, and how well it answers the original posters questions. However, nobody cares. None of these languages ever reached a "good enough" status, i.e. a status where you can really make a living out of programming them.
I'm still working on this, though, and I still believe that the original idea is sound. It just needs more focus on execution, ironing out all the details (e.g. having a complete runtime support library), building a community, etc, things I never really had enough resources to do well enough.
The poster posits a very materialistic view as being self-evident. In reality, it's very restrictive.
Postulating that there is no soul but only a physical state of gray matter is a bit like postulating that there is no software but only bit states in the transistors of a computer. It seems self-evident, and it's true in a very restricted sense. But at the same time, it's clearly the best way to completely misunderstand what software or soul are.
In France, for a couple of years, we had a "Camp d'été décolonial" (Uncolonial Summer Camp, I kid you not) organized for people who have to suffer "institutional state racism", which is interpreted as "anybody but white". See https://www.marianne.net/socie....
I am all against racism. But you don't fight racism against black people by making a virtue of racism against white people.
A few years back, I stopped using Firefox after Brendan Eich was attacked and ultimately evicted from his role as Mozilla CEO just for having dared giving $1000 to proposition 8 a few years earlier.
I left Twitter and Facebook a few months ago after witnessing active censorship and speech control myself, and noticed that these companies were obviously using political orientation as a primary criterion for account suspension. Based on my experience, leaning right put your accounts more at risk than harassing or assaulting women on-line, or even blatantly recruiting for ISIS.
Now I have to consider replacing Google with alternatives too for the same kind of bullshit?
All these are attacks on freedom of though and freedom of speech, plain and simple. What's wrong with Silicon Valley? Do you think freedom is an option or what?
So attributing "the gender gap in technology to biology-based differences in abilities" is "allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions", but it's somehow OK to write that "male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature"? The way that whole thing is playing si a good example of applying a ridiculous amount of social pressure to ignore actual data or belittle minority opinions.
Not yet. There is no news reader and no M-x doctor in systemd yet.
Yes, it's intended to be similarly short. Compared to the BSD makefiles, what's new is the configuration step. Compared to automake, it's that it does not require a (lengthy) makefile generation phase to run first.
There are also drawbacks, obviously. Autoconf and automake are more feature-complete. But for simple projects, it's probably a good choice.
You mean progress instead of scrolling? Interesting idea.
One thing is that they take forever to run. On a project I currently work on, Spice, autoconf and automake take over 70s, the build takes about 20s. So we are at the point where auto-configuration takes longer than actual compilation.
The "bots" seems to be an excuse for Facebook and Twitter to target a number of high-visibility anti-Macron accounts. I have witnessed that myself, as one of my accounts was flagged as "bot" after I retweeted something about the #MacronLeaks. But for about three days, I had seen signs of accounts being targeted, and they were all anti-Macron accounts (I followed both sides and had probably about as many subscriptions in one camp and in the other). Hate from the pro-Macron account (of which I witnessed a lot personally) did not trigger any reaction that I could see.
On Twitter, the symptoms were that the targeted account was suspended for an alleged violation of the rules. What rule was violated is really unclear in the message. The rules are also sufficiently vaguely worded that anything is possible. What do you call "hate speech", for example? Does an obvious dislike for a presidential candidate qualify as "hate"? Does a video of pro-Macron supporters insulting Le Pen qualify as hate? If so, hate of whom? In any case, I saw several reports, all from anti-Macron accounts. And then my own account was suspended. And frankly, I don't see any rule I could possibly have violated, unless "retweeting both anti-Macron and anti-Le Pen twits makes you a general-purpose hater" is one of them.
On Facebook, things were more sneaky. Apparently, Facebook disabled the admin accounts for a large number of pro-Le Pen pages. It was later reported that this was in reaction to the #MacronLeaks being considered as propagating fake news. But I saw the first reports the day before the Macron leaks, so this is just an excuse. Again, all the reports I saw of accounts being the target of this shutdown came from anti-Macron or pro-Le Pen accounts (this is not the same thing), despite the bad behaviours being, as far as I can tell, equally well balanced between both sides (maybe even with a bit more hate on the Macron side, IMHO).
In any case, these attempts at controlling speech a few days before elections was the last straw for me. I disagree with the ideas of Macron as much as I despise many aspects of Le Pen program. But in my scale of what matters, free speech is even above that. So I closed my Twitter and Facebook accounts, and will probably be very happy without being a Facebook product or a Twitter ad-generator.
It's a score of 89 on the DxO Mark Mobile, which is presently the highest for a smartphone. See complete review here: https://www.dxomark.com/Mobile....
If your choices are voting for Hilary or for Trump and you say there is no bug, you are not very good at spotting bugs to start with
Actually, this is one possible way to interpret the Bible. That we are children, that the rules of the game are this and that, that some specific characters seem to play slightly outside normal rules (seeing the future, walking on water, not dying, etc). And that in the end, we win or we lose.
So I'd say that between this and near-death-experience testimonies, we have pretty strong clues that we are not in what Musk calls the "base reality".
One thing where I'd differ from Musk, though, is believing that the "base reality" is like ours. The rules could be completely different.
Any language can replicate this, and in a similar number of lines of code (given that the functionality available in a similar library).
Of course not. How do you implement a C or C++ library so that a variable or function declared on one computer is transparently used on another? In ELIoT, you can write this:
So let me try in C or C++, where the code inside "tell" is supposed to execute on another machine called "pi.local":
This is syntactically invalid, and I see no easy way to make it syntactically valid C or C++ . The closest I can think of are Apple's blocks. So you could write ^ { printf (...); } instead, which is no big deal. But then. How do you capture the value of Var and send it over?
In order for this to work, you need a fully homoiconic language, where you can transmit the code and its data over the wire, and where there is a way to reconstruct it on the other side reliably so that you can execute there. I'm not saying you can't modify C to get there, but certainly not easily. And in any case, it's not just a library, and not in any language.
How can something like that be said for a new programming language whose project was just announced this month, and is currently little more than a laboratory curiosity?
By testing it. Tested with 1000 clients against a single Raspberry Pi. So that's "hundreds".
Security has been considered, but is not implemented at this stage.
The planned security model is to show only those features that are available to a given user. Say that temperature is available to anybody, but self_destruct requires a special privilege. Then anybody connecting to the device can request "temperature" and gets a response, but "self_destruct" is not even in the symbol table, so no way to access it. Trying to use it results in a run-time error, just as if you had tried to call schtroumpf.
If you want to access a privileged feature, you do something like import "self_destruct". And that checks if you are allowed to import it or not. If you are, then your symbol table is populated with self_destruct and you can call it. Otherwise, run-time error as above. This is not implemented yet, but is definitely on my to-do list.
Another validation that I plan to implement is the validation of "reply" code. Since you sent the code including the possible "reply" values, you can check on return that only a valid reply is sent, and reject any reply code that does not match one you sent.
Regarding encryption, I'm still thinking. I'd like something very lightweight for performance reasons, e.g. XOR with a one-time pad.
Brilliant. Author here, and I must admit it never occurred to me ;-)
Did you try Eye of Sauron or Dolphin at 4K resolution? I doubt you reach 60FPS on those, but if you do, I have to check my drivers ;-)
Cool, finally a card that can run practically all entries in ShaderToy in real-time :-)
Sabine Hossenfelder analyzed this problem and suggested a solution. It's the winner of the 2014 FQXi contest.
The language alone is not good enough, but it is simple to share. By contrast, building a complete web browser today is a bit difficult, and even a smaller "graphic" language like Tao3D is not that easy to build, in particular if you include all the dependencies. For Tao3D, you need Qt with WebKit, OpenGL, VLC, XLR, LLVM and I forget half a dozen. So I think that exposing the language-only part is interesting. For a while, Tao3D was the same project as XLR, but we decided to split early on. We wanted XLR to remain a non-graphical, non-reactive, non-networked, easy to port language.
While Go and Swift are interesting incremental improvements, they are not taking into account what we learned about programming languages. In many ways, these two languages seem firmly stuck in the 1980s. For example, Go has no generics, and as far as I can tell, Swift still does not have the kind of true generic types I introduced in XL in 2000, i.e. the possibility to call "ordered" all types that have a less than, and then define functions with "ordered" instead of having to use <T> all over the place just like in C++ (and please, could we stop using angle brackets?)
More generally, there was a lot to be learned from more dynamic languages deriving from Lisp. Being able to treat code as data (homoiconicity) completely changes things. It means your language can be extended in itself, just like Lisp integrated object-oriented capabilities effortlessly. It means you can do metaprogramming, introspection, reflection, dynamic code generation, in a natural way rather than with specialised ad-hoc features. All things that Go or Swift spectacularly fail to do.
A real language redesign does not bring you incremental benefits, it should bring orders of magnitude on many tasks. I speak from experience. In XL, I can do complex arithmetic in 11 lines of code. What about Swift or Go? Ask yourself why Go can't offer complex arithmetic as a library package? Similarly, in Tao3D, I can do things HTML5 just can't, in a much less verbose, much higher-level language, and simple animations take 30 times less code than in JavaScript. The 30x factor tells me that I invented something new. Many others can demonstrate similar innovation.
I fail to see benefits of a similar order of magnitude with Swift or Go, and it annoys me. Companies like Apple and Google have the means, if only the financial ones, to make bigger things happen, in particular when smaller teams like ours already did a lot of investigative work.
The double slit experiment violates causality, which means physics violates causality.
Why do you believe the double slit experiment violates causality? It violates locality, but not causality. No slit, no interference.
I'm crazy enough to believe I have found a path to unification that is actually quite simple: add a new relativity principle that states that laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the measurement instrument we use. Here is a parallel:
- Special relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of your state of motion. So a complete description of an experiment must include which referential you are using. There is no absolute space, no absolute time, no aether. And we need to add new transformation laws from one referential to the next, which are Lorentz transforms.
- General relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of acceleration. So a complete description of an experiment must include accelerations, including gravitation. There is no flat space-time anymore, but something that is curved by gravitation fields. So we need to add new transformations from one curved space-time to another, use tensor math, covariant and contravariant quadrivectors, etc.
- My still incomplete theory of incomplete measurements (TIM) states that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the measurement instruments used. So a complete description of an experiment must include which instruments were used, including calibration and range. Just because two instruments are calibrated to coincide on a given range cannot be used to postulate that they match at any scale. Space, time, mass and other measurements are no longer continuous, but discrete (because all our physical instruments give discrete results). We need to add new transformation when going from one physical instrument to another, which correspond almost exactly to renormalisation in quantum mechanics, but give an explanation as to their origin.
The TIM focuses on what I learn about a system using a physical measurement instrument. This starts by defining what an instrument is:
- It's a portion of the universe (i.e. it's not "outside the matrix")
- which has an input and an output (e.g. the probe and the display of a voltmeter)
- where changes in the state at the input yield a change in the state of the output (change in voltage result in changes on the display)
- which ideally depend only on the input (the voltmeter picks the voltage at the probe, not somewhere else)
- and change the output (nothing being said about the change in the input, since even macro-scale experiments can be destructive)
- the change in the output being mapped to a mathematical representation (often a real number) through a calibration
The instrument gives me knowledge about the state at the input. Since the instrument has a limited number of states in the output, my knowledge of the system through this instrument at any given time is described by a probability for each of the possible states. If I have N states, the probabilities p_1...p_N are all positive, and their sum is 1. So the knowledge state can be represented by a unit vector in dimension N.
For example, if I care about "is there a particle here", the possible measurements are "yes" and "no". The knowledge state is therefore represented by a unit complex number. If now you want to answer that on a plate with 1 million possible positions, you have a field of 1 million complex numbers, with the additional constraint that the particle must be at only one position (which is expressed as the sum of the probabilities for all "yes" being 1). That field is remarkably similar to the wave function, and this reasoning explains why it is complex-valued, why it is a probability of presence, and why it collapses when you know where the particle is.
But the primary difference with QM and GTR is that space-time is no longer continuous. It is discrete, and the discretization depends on the instrument being used. Because it is discrete, there are never any theoretical infinities in the sums you compute (these infinities being the reason why QM and GTR are considered fundamentally incompatib
that thorium reactor is fission, not fusion. Not exactly interchangeable.
Obviously, which is why I wrote thorium / fusion, with a slash. You want the combo. Jumpstarting a fusion-only reactor from the wireless power line? That takes forever! Last time I checked, you need at least two to three frigging minutes!
A thorium reactor, on the other hand, is a good little backup, underpowered, sure, but largely enough to fire up a Fusion Drive 6G almost instantly. Also, many small thorium generators fit in your pocket, whereas even the latest Mr Fusion are big enough that you need a car to haul them around. So when I want a senso-holomovie on the beach, I always carry a little thorium booster with me, just drop it n the seawater for a few seconds, and I'm good to go!
Also, I forgot something essential in my list. You probably want a temporal adjustment controller. I just realized mine is on the fritz, and I'm no longer sure which year I'm in. Can you imagine if you make a mistake and talk about recent technology to, say, early 21st century Slashdotters? That would be cruel.