Skip Navigation

User banner

Ace T'Ken

@ AceTKen @lemmy.ca

Posts
3
Comments
108
Joined
2 yr. ago

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.

  • British Canadian Asbestos bag on display in random restaurant in Chile

    Jump

  • What an odd thing to display. I wonder what their reasoning is for this?

  • The best thing you can do for the fediverse is just be kind

    Jump

  • You sound exactly like the kind of person I want in my community: !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

    Check the sidebar to see if it suits you too!

  • The best thing you can do for the fediverse is just be kind

    Jump

  • You sound exactly like the kind of person I want in my community: !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

    Check the sidebar to see if it suits you too!

  • Flow was only the beginning...

    Jump

  • Microsoft's quantum computing claims slammed as 'fraudulent'

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Microsoft's quantum computing claims slammed as 'fraudulent'

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Microsoft's quantum computing claims slammed as 'fraudulent'

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Microsoft's quantum computing claims slammed as 'fraudulent'

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Microsoft's quantum computing claims slammed as 'fraudulent'

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Activists vandalize Trump golf resort over his comments on emptying out Gaza

    Jump

  • Holy fuck, a protest that is actually targeting the people it should instead of just random bystanders that have nothing to do with it?

    About time! Git 'em y'all!

  • You can see who upvoted and downvoted a post by viewing it in friendica.

    Jump

  • I've gone to my community and to specific posts, but can't work out how to show downvotes. Can you shed a little light on how to see them please?

  • You can see who upvoted and downvoted a post by viewing it in friendica.

    Jump

  • Yeah, that's what I do as well. Seems much nicer than hurting their community by just randomly downvoting everything I don't want to see.

  • You can see who upvoted and downvoted a post by viewing it in friendica.

    Jump

  • No, sometimes it is about blocking.

    If you run a small community like several of us do, even a small amount of downvotes can completely shut down a discussion from ever being seen by anyone else. It's a way petty assholes have of trying to kill conversation in small communities because they don't like something about what you said or how you said it.

    If someone neither wants to contribute nor lurk, and merely drag down a community, they shouldn't be allowed to continue to be a part of it at all.

  • You can see who upvoted and downvoted a post by viewing it in friendica.

    Jump

  • I'd also like to know as I'm in the same boat you are. I'm just leaving this comment to remember to look later and see if you got an answer.

  • I'll have one war please

    Jump

  • But you can come serve in Canada and help us if you like!

  • "TikTok is stealing your data."

    Jump
  • Removed

    rebels with a cause

    Jump

  • I didn't read him as saying that though. They are not stating that capitalism is better, they are stating that human greed will attempt to corrupt every system.

    There have to be safeguards in place to stop the greed. And yes, there might be safeguards within one anarchist collective (which anywhere else would be known as "laws"), but not another one that gets greedy and wants to take over your collective and has bigger guns.

    Fighting against greed is an ongoing project no matter what political system you are under. Switching systems does not miraculously solve this.

  • What makes a "good vegan", and how can I be one?

    Jump

  • Yeah that's a really good example, this entire comment right here. Don't do this.

  • How are you doing with your communities?

    Jump

  • Not great. Sort of lost my will to post after a bunch of experiments over at !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

    If I post pure questions in the weekly thread, generally one or two people respond. Political or not, it doesn't seem to matter.

    If I post questions with some opinion added, people respond more frequently to those (even if I do not believe the opinion), but we get scads of aggressive comments and downvotes which buries the thread quickly.

    To top that off, if I respond in other threads in Lemmy, I get people digging up the weekly threads (or responses therein) and trying to use those as ammunition against me. It's super disheartening.