You have to love pop sci headlines with phrases like "...promises possible..."
I promise you, BBC's Roland Pease, that it's possible the sun won't rise tomorrow and Linus Torvalds with announce that he will be Microsoft's next CEO.
So CKs brilliant talent for comedy had not so much to do with his ticket sales, eh?
That sounds like a sales pitch. Oh wait, scroll to the bottom, this is a sales pitch. Classic tactic of making the incredible sound easy, just pay a small fee!
Our senses are still only tuned in to detect portions of "reality" that are relevant to life on earth. For example, our eyes detect the band of EM radiation most useful during daytime on Earth. But even though are eyes are narrow band and highly non-linear sensors, they (+our other equally flawed senses) have served us pretty well as far as understanding the true nature of EM waves.
I guess my point is that our senses still aren't evolving to detect reality in some sort of true pure mathematical sense.
So the Sell/Check/Recycle model only requires 33% of the labor compared to the Check only model. The author suggests that this means tripling production would be possible, but that depends on QA being the factories bottleneck. If QA isn't the bottleneck, than you might as well fire 2/3 of Quinn's QA workers. Hooray, the computer didn't take my job, but it took the jobs of the guy to my right and the gal to my left.
Physics experiments have ruled theories like this out. They can put a very very small upper bound on how much the constants can change over a volume the size of the universe, and over the lifetime of the universe.
So that's wayyyyyyy outside our galaxy? Any idea how many galaxies fit into a 1 billion ly sphere around the milky way? I'm guessing a shit ton, which makes the detection of a bh merger seem more realistic to me.
Scot Aaronson does understand this work very well, and he mentions several times (with citations) that there is no widely accepted proof or disproof that a quantum speedup will ever exist for quantum annealers.
So then why is it important? What is the argument for encrypting all web traffic? Does it act as a sort of camouflage for the actually important encrypted traffic?
Ignorant question: If they are making getting a certificate easy for everyone, what is to stop "bad guys" from getting certificates for their sketchy sites? I usually look to the green "https" in my uri bar for reassurance when I'm on an unusual site.