Temporal API is far more consequential than what was attempted before. Their proposal for serializing timezones is about to become the de facto standard extension to ISO 8601 (date/time).
It's not deceptive. The whole point of the study was to figure out a way to transfer quantum information through active Internet cables, and not empty optical cables.
This is basic QM "spooky action at a distance" stuff. Quantum information is teleported instantaneously, however to make use of that information, you actually need to transfer classical information over regular channels. That doesn't mean it's not useful, see for example the way QKD works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution
It's a perfectly legit interpretation of what's happening, and many physicists share the same opinion. Of course the big caveat is that you need to interfere those worlds so that they cancel out, which necessarily requires a lower algorithmic bound which prevents you from doing infinite amount of computation in an instant.
You don't need "classical encryption" for quantum key distribution. With QKD you can provably detect if a MITM attack happened. With classical methods you can never be 100% sure, although how much of that matters in practice is another question.
> Most of our apps use React. When we first adopted React, we were pleased with the development productivity it provided, but sadly its initial performance was subpar in terms of start-up time, memory consumption, and responsiveness. After significant and complicated optimizations we reached performance benchmarks that were good enough, and yet we desired a new technology that was both fast and simple.
> To our delight, our very first prototype with Flutter easily exceeded our target benchmarks! Without any optimization whatsoever, our Flutter rewrite launched twice as fast as our original app, consumed less runtime memory, and felt more responsive and playful to use
Yes, it probably even works in total isolation from any radiation, because it can interact with quantum vacuum and give off energy to create photons. That's the next thing they are trying to prove.
It's not like we are any closer to resolving the measurement problem today. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss Wheeler, all alternative theories for this problem are radical or "unattractive".
If there is a legal conflict, EU law trumps all, the same way federal law trumps local law in US. The highest court is always an EU institution. EU countries give up part of their sovereignty in specific legal areas, like market competition regulations. They can always leave if they want.
It's simple, EU law says Apple had to pay taxes at that time. Apple's ignorance of EU law is not an excuse, this doesn't work for individuals, why should it work for big multinational companies? Ireland doesn't have the power alone to overturn these kinds of laws, unless, of course, they decide to leave EU.
Apple's decision to put their trust completely in Ireland officials and sidestep the EU is their own mistake. Reminds me of when Trump tried to arrange a trade deal with Germany without EU, which was impossible.
This doesn't answer the question. We know how classical physics emerges from a large number of quantum events through statistics. That was not the point of Schrödinger's cat though experiment! The idea is to link a macroscopic event to a random subatomic event that is in a superposition. When or how does the wave function collapse, does it even collapse?
It's funny that you mention hubris and yet you fall victim to it by dismissing the measurement problem and Bell's theorem. It's true that our theories are not a perfect description of "true reality", but they do tell you something about what "true reality" must be.
> That Bell’s theorem “proves” something is language applicable to a mathematical structure, not to the physical world itself.
This is simply wrong, Bell's theorem definitely applies to the "physical world". A world that does not violate Bell's inequality would look vastly different to ours.
You are not a making insightful point at all. Nothing in the world can guarantee you that "Y implies X", after all, we can be living in a simulation. Does that mean we should shutdown all scientific discussions by repeating what you stated? Of course not.
Before anybody misinterprets Susskind opinion, String theory might not be, and probably isn't, the theory of the real world, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. The prevalent opinion amongst the physics community is that some parts of String theory are isomorphic to the theory of the real word whatever it might be (e.g. ADS/CFT correspondence).