Stop cyberbullying the EU!
Why should I be more worried about algorithmic breakthroughs for quantum computers than for classical computers?
director of nuclear fusion research at mit was murdered
sketchy
https://apnews.com/article/mit-shooting-nuno-fg-loureiro-portugal-f310824e354180816c33c9f40c0c5195
I found this essay about it superinteresting: https://disinfo.zone/loureiro_chaos.html
My understanding is that SHA-256 is weakened by quantum algorithms, but not to an extent that is significant in practice. The situation is not the same as for RSA. It is not automatic that if we build powerful quantum computers, bitcoin breaks. An algorithmic breakthrough is needed. Worth thinking about, but there is already a risk that people break cryptography with classical algorithms. Am I understanding this correctly?
I think a lot of people see it. But Europeans are more complacent, and more suspicious of any strong opinions or ideology. This probably goes back to the second world war and its aftermath. So we work out compromises, without principles, and then compromise the compromises. Rinse and repeat.
What are the strongest points of the prosecutors and why do they not hold water?
I can’t be the only one who finds it taxing to read AI generated articles. It is as though the soulless nature of the text requires me to put in part of my soul to extract its meaning.
In the latest All-in Podcast, Chamath was talking about how we must find a way to transact online that preserves privacy. Around the1:03 mark. The guy has direct access to Trump.
I went to the video after you said it was stuck at 295 and I was not counted. So YouTube is misrepresenting the number of views.
Nick Fuentes v Piers Morgan, watched it twice, first watch I missed the point, then the kids explained it.
Like a boomer, I have written 1,000 words on the cultural shift we have failed to understand.
"You can't stop what's coming"
https://petermccormack.substack.com/p/nick-fuentes-vs-the-world-no-country 
I think you missed a large part of the generational divide by characterizing it as boomers and young people. As a Gen Xer, I could not identify with either group in your analysis. We are probably around the same age. Did we really ever believe in the establishment? After living through the aftermath of 9/11 and the forever wars. Is it really a shock to us that it appears to be coming apart? If there is any difference, it is more about how the generations reacted, whether through protests, quiet surrender, or defiant nihilism.
What might those technological breakthroughs be?
Sounds like an extremely risk averse person, who does not understand the real risk.
I wonder if the EU countries that are still buying Russian gas are following proper KYC regulations.
I am confused. Nick Szabo wrote: “The Core argument I've heard is that one can hide data in other ways that are not pruneable; OP_RETURN data is pruneable. This suggests that allowing more data on OP_RETURN conceivably may reduce legal risks.” But you say he said it is not possible to remove it from a full node. Could you please clarify?
The UK Gov has listened to the people!
… and told them to fuck off.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194?reveal_response=yes
I like how their response to “ID cards were scrapped in 2010, in our view for good reason.” is to explain that it “is not a card”.
A higher op_return is already allowed by the consensus rules. If you want to disallow it, it would require a hardfork. If you believe it is such an important issue, I think that is what you should advocate for, not just mitigating things at the policy level.
Ficciones by Jorge Luis Borges,
Four Quartets by T. S. Eliot,
Mysticism for Beginners by Adam Zagajewski
this is weird... lego military prison... https://www.temu.com/nz/military-prison-building-blocks--trap-diy-construction-toy-compatible-with--for-young--made-of-durable-abs-material-g-601099607862012.html
There is a 1996 artwork called LEGO Concentration Camp by Polish artist Zbigniew Libera.
You are promoting cell death!
I would turn around and say that those who come from such dysfunctional families are better equipped to notice the same patterns played out at a larger scale. At first, you may simply notice something feels off. Then later on, you are able to articulate why. This is not to be dismissed as just intellectualisation. Especially if it leads to meaningful actions.
I think what I, and others, are having an issue with is the following.
In many worlds, the different branches come about, because after a measurement, the wavefunction is a superposition of different states, each with its own outcome of the measurement, and these states, for all practical purposes, do not talk to each other, because of decoherence. Prior to the measurement, all kinds of interference effects happened, but at that point the wavefunction did not separate into different branches, and there was no meaningful way to talk about different universes or worlds.
Now, for quantum computation, you rely on interference effects. You don't want them to be tiny. So it is precisely what prevents you from talking about separate branches of the wavefunction that is responsible for the speed-up that you want. This is why it seems to me that it is misleading to explain the speed-up of quantum algorithms in terms of parallelism. On the contrary, the speed-up comes from that the wavefunction cannot be separated into different branches.
You are not getting extra compute from different universes. You are getting it because the way the wavefunction evolves mixes everything together in an unseparable way, making use of the whole Hilbert space effectively, rather than dealing with the very specific case of different branches that have decohered. I don't think this is semantics. If you cannot even approximately identify different branches of the wavefunction, while the computation is running, how can you talk about different universes?
Another way to put this is to ask, how is it possible to get an exponential speed-up when comparing a quantum vs classical algorithm? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what happens with Shor's algorithm. If all it came down to was parallelism, the speed-up would scale with the number of different branches of the wavefunction, would it not?
But are they even approximately separate worlds for quantum computers? I thought that quantum algorithms leveraged the interference effects for the speed up relative to classical algorithms. So to make them work well, it would seem like you would want a situation where you are very far from anything that can be described as separate branches of a wavefunction. If it is just small interference effects on top of parallel, classical worlds, then the speed up will be tiny, no?