I advocate for logical and consistent viewpoints on controversial topics. If you’re looking at my profile, I’ve probably made you mad by doing so.
That’s fair, but comics like the above (which are endemic to this sub) aren’t about the extremes and are about standard human behaviours.
It’d be like someone seeing me double check the door lock at my house and saying “You must have OCD.”
I also find it mildly concerning that someone may see these memes / comics and self-diagnose themselves with a mental illness that they do not have since self-diagnosis (and wanting to belong to a group) is a massive issue in the internet age.
That’s been my exact response. So many things here are just… normal human behaviours.
Monty Python - Life of Brian
Ohhhh, THERE’S the boner I was looking for! Thanks bro.
Mostly acid reflux, I fear.
Yeah, it’s a pretty dumb slang.
You know some people say they have an automatic reaction to the word “moist”? I have that with the slang above.
The part that doesn’t make sense is how a guess on a QC in a binary is any better than a scientist just guessing an outcome from a binary. Yeah, it can do it a lot, but if you can’t test the outcome to verify if it’s correct or not, how is it better than any other way of guessing outcomes?
Statistically, it absolutely isn’t. Even if it continually narrows things down via guesses, it’s still no more valuable than any other guesses. Because in all the whitepapers I’ve seen, it’s not calculating anything because it can’t. It’s simply assuming that one option is correct.
In the real world, it’s not a calculation and it doesn’t assist in… anything really. It’s no better than a random number generator assigning those numbers to a result. I don’t get the utility other than potentially breaking numerical cryptography.
So that’s the part that gets me stuck. There is no clear answer and it has no way to check the result as QC aren’t capable of doing so (otherwise they wouldn’t be using QC since they can only be based on binary inputs and binary guesses of true / false outcomes on a massive scale). How can it decide that it is “correct” and that the task is completed?
Computations based on guesses of true / false can only be so accurate with no way to check the result in the moment.
I appreciate the reply!
I made the attempt, but couldn’t parse that first link. I gathered that it was about error correction due to the absolutely massive number of them that crop up in QC, but I admit that I can’t get much further with it as the industry language is thick on that paper. Error reduction is good, but it still isn’t on any viable data, and it’s still a massive amount of errors even post-correction. It’s more of a small refinement to an existing questionable system, which is okay, but doesn’t really do much unless I’m misunderstanding.
The Willow (and others) examples I’m skeptical on. We already have different types of chips for different kinds of operations, such as CPUs, GPUs, NPUs, etc. This is just one more kind of chip that will be found in computers of the future. Of course, these can sometimes be combined into a single chip too, but you get the idea.
The factorization of integers is one operation that is simple on a quantum computer. Since that is an essential part of public / private key cryptography, those encryption schemes have been recently upgraded with algorithms that a quantum computer cannot so easily unravel.
With quantum computing, a system of qubits can be set up in such a way that it’s like a machine that physically simulates the problem. It runs this experiment over and over again and measures the outcome, until one answer is the clear winner. For the right type of problem, and with enough qubits, this is unbelievably fast.
Problem is, this only works for systems that have a known answer (like cryptography) with a verifiable result, otherwise the system never knows when the equation is “complete”. It’s also of note that none of these organizations are publishing their benchmarking algorithms so when they talk about speed, they aren’t exactly being forthright. I can write code that runs faster on an Apple 2e than a modern x64 processor, doesn’t mean the Apple 2e is faster. Then factor in how fast quantum systems degrade and it’s… not really useful in power expenditure or financially to do much beyond a large corporation or government breaking encryption.
Well, I love being wrong! Are you able to show a documented quantum experiment that was carried out on a quantum computer (and not an emulator using a traditional architecture)?
How about a use case that isn’t simply for breaking encryption, benchmarking, or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for or use in the real world?
I’m not requesting these proofs to be snarky, but simply because I’ve never seen anything else beyond what I listed.
When I see all the large corporations mentioning the processing power of these things, they’re simply mentioning how many times they can get an emulated tied bit to flip, and then claiming grandiose things for investors. That’s pretty much it. To me, that’s fraudulent (or borderline) corporate BS.
Yeah, most quantum science at the moment is largely fraudulent. It’s not just Microsoft. It’s being developed because it’s being taught in business schools as the next big thing, not because anybody has any way to use it.
Any of the “quantum computers” you see in the news are nothing more than press releases about corporate emulators functioning how they think it might work if it did work, but it’s far too slow to be used for anything.
Me too. It’s faster than texting and gives you a whole lot of missing context.
Looks like what I’d want to use, but to reach broad support it needs a Windows client as well.
I appreciate it! I mod !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca if you’d ever care to join us.
We try to disagree in good faith and not attack each other there.
That paper is not really a source, it’s a literature review. That’s not inherently bad, but essentially all it does is pull things in from other (if you check, quite outdated by nearly 60 years, which is a lot, ESPECIALLY for biology) articles and say “… and therefore this other thing may be true.” It’s essentially philosophizing.
The paper neither invalidate nor proves anything, it simply makes a loose connection to a strange claim.
The author is correct that we do have characteristics of herbivores. However that is not something anyone was questioning; that’s literally one of the requirements for being an omnivore. We also have characteristics of carnivores. And even obligate carnivores will often have some characteristics of herbivores due to evolutionary holdovers.
The paper is, essentially, saying nothing of value.
Errrr… are you looking for me to provide you a primary scientific source for how teeth work in animals with differing diets? Most of that is in veterinary texts (which is an amalgam of info), but it’s akin to asking for a scientific evidence for gravity. What you’re asking is too broad to be covered in a single paper and shows a misunderstanding of how scientific studies focus and function. I was simply giving you a primer since you asked, and that blog is good enough for that (and accurate from the portion I read).
I can point you at papers (such as this one on Tooth root morphology as an indicator for dietary specialization in carnivores) which can help explain part of how food selection works in evolution, but I’m not sure what level of information would satisfy you or why you’d even want it?
Here’s one on how tooth wear affects teeth differently based on evolutionary eating habits.
Here’s one on the development and evolution of teeth.
Here’s one on mammalian teeth in specific.
If you’d like more, feel free to use https://scholar.google.com/ to look for more.
Human teeth also have sharp peaks and deeper valleys within them which is the case for the overwhelming majority of omnivorous creatures. Most obligate herbivores have flatter teeth or will regrow them unless they have teeth explicitly for a particular use case.
Source: You can check out scads of scientific resources on herbivores versus omnivore versus carnivore teeth. I assume you know how a search engine works, but here’s a solid article on differences.
Also my sister has been one of the veterinary bigwigs at several zoos through her lifetime and we’ve had multiple discussions on it.
Definitely. When I did all of my forestry work, we were warned about brown bears extensively. Don’t get on their territory. If you have to, don’t take chances. Don’t fuck with them.
I don’t know where the idea comes from that these things will just leave you alone. They will not.
My insane conspiracy theorist mother in law would love this.
Sadly.