

I am absolutely in the same boat. I would love to listen to Jeff as well and every time he has a guest on I make sure to grab the podcast, but I can’t listen to one person podcasts. He absolutely needs a co-host or guests every week.
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.
I am absolutely in the same boat. I would love to listen to Jeff as well and every time he has a guest on I make sure to grab the podcast, but I can’t listen to one person podcasts. He absolutely needs a co-host or guests every week.
What? That’s not correct at all. The leading cause of death for women is heart disease, which accounts for approximately one in three female deaths each year. “Men” or any derivatives thereof on most statistical lists are below even common mosquitoes (malaria) as causes of death. A woman is more likely to be killed by their own kidneys than by a man.
Don’t spread needless culture war scare bullshit.
Source: The goddamn CDC.
As someone from the rest of the world it’s absolutely wild that your politicians get to do this and everyone else just has to sit there and listen to them.
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.
Murders. I don’t want to spoil any more than that because it has a twist.
Yeah that’s a really good example, this entire comment right here. Don’t do this.
Just FYI, as per their own terms you can cancel up until it ships.
This is a damn good question that I would also love an answer to!
Hispanics have a very high population of religious voters and many of them don’t believe in abortion. For many religious people, even if they disagree handily with everything else the Republican party does, they will not vote Democrat because of the abortion issue.
There was a pretty large research study and a bunch of podcasts on it.
For anyone looking, someone Archive.org’d the final Win x64 compiled version:
What was the final build? I have 1.1.1402 on my PC.
I generally don’t talk about it, but because you asked, I have seen a lot of anime and hate most of it. I have seen Hellsing, Hellsing Ultimate, about 9/10 of the OG run of Fullmetal Alchemist, a lot of Ranma 1/2, Serial Experiments Lain, Akira, some Death Note, La Blue Girl, some tennis one I can’t remember the name of, Castlevania, a few Studio Ghibli movies, Attack on Titan S1 & 2, random episodes of Samurai Pizza Cats, all of One Punch Man, Interspecies Reviewers, Slayers, some DiC Sailor Moon, some early Pokemon, and a few Dragonball, YuGiOh, Digimon, and Naruto episodes.
I don’t count early GI Joe or Transformers even though they’re technically anime, but I didn’t like those either.
Of those, I liked Interspecies Reviewers, about 1.5 seasons of OPM, 1 season of Castlevania, and Hellsing Abridged (because it’s fucking hilarious).
Here’s a random top 10 of reasons:
But they are portrayed differently and there are entire threads about how “modern audiences” don’t like the American Pie way.
The three things you mentioned there in The Boys were not for titillation, they were played for humor or shock as was the (overwhelmingly) male nudity. And the actions are mostly done by the bad guys. A butt shot of a Starlight body double in the most recent season isn’t comparable and is a stinger to someone being raped. Sex and sexuality is portrayed poorly and as kinda gross throughout.
American Pie had a scene for titillation and the actions were carried out by the protagonists. Sex and sexuality is portrayed as fun, nothing to be ashamed of, and a normal part of life.
The OP is correct. It was never about not being able to reference creepy sex practices by bad people. That was never off the table.
Things are different now, and I would argue in a very unhealthy way.
I don’t know if it’s the one you’re thinking of, but this guy does motion comic stuff and makes fun of superheroes:
It looks like I will be nearly the only dissenter here. I didn’t care for the game.
PROS:
NEUTRALS:
CONS:
CONCLUSION: Meh? I really don’t understand the adoration people have for this game. It’s a mediocre non-combat roguelike with about 3 hour of content they’ve spread over 20 hours. It feels very much like a case of style over substance. This game genuinely makes me sad. I really wanted to like it, but… ugh. It feels like work.
Now bring Jeff back and make him play Mario Party.