Why not have a meta discussion like a Wikipedia Talk page so comments like these would have room and critique won't be shut down.
Yesterday (you can look in my comment history) I ran into a situation where the person doing the down-voting turned out to be basing it on their opinion not fact (after they finally stated their opinion on the matter, which contradicts peer-reviewed research on the topic, I realized why they were down voting: insufficient depth of understanding of the topic) and no one came after them to correct the situation...
Either have people explain why they down-voted or have a Talk page where people can discuss their reasons, complain, etc, behind the scene.
My other comment on this thread followed others in congratulating the author. It specifically said "Bravo!" and guess what? It got down voted.
So the explanation may be that it is useless input but believe me it is not useless to the author to have people congratulate them for the fruit of their labor. It's a human desire to be recognized by others. How is it not a positive comment? Why down-vote something as benign and empathic as saying congratulations? So force a comment on each down-vote and things might get a little bit better because at least we'll know it's not just random acts of hostility and that the down-voter has a rational reason for it, at least in their mind.
Why is this down voted? I hate it when people do that and offer no explanation. Totally useless input, even harmful. HN should force comment on down-vote.
That's not true. The quantum tunneling effect is what gives physical (as opposed to simulated) quantum annealing an advantage over simulated annealing (classic thermodynamics)
Google that.
"Quantum annealers are physical quantum devices designed to solve optimization problems by finding low-energy configurations of an appropriate energy function by exploiting cooperative tunneling effects to escape local minima. Classical annealers use thermal fluctuations for the same computational purpose, and Markov chains based on this principle are among the most widespread optimization techniques. The fundamental mechanism underlying quantum annealing consists of exploiting a controllable quantum perturbation to generate tunneling processes. The computational potentialities of quantum annealers are still under debate, since few ad hoc positive results are known. Here, we identify a wide class of large-scale nonconvex optimization problems for which quantum annealing is efficient while classical annealing gets stuck. These problems are of central interest to machine learning."
I saw the CuMn reference and thought they're leveraging quantum spin dynamics in glass alloys.
It's not quantum parallelism but quantum annealing that I was referring to. Very different models of computation.
So this seems to be about neuromorphic computing, not quantum annealing. In that case, the question about why would this be better than GPU models of computation is very valid. Maybe cheaper and less energy? But I doubt that it would be practical if it significantly underperforms in comparison.
My understanding is that the D-Wave quantum computer uses quantum spin-glass annealing (by tapping into these physical effects) to solve combinatorial optimization problems faster than classical computers, including simulated (thermodynamic) annealing.
I believe this research work is going in the direction of building quantum annealers. Reinventing what D-Wave had done, or improving on it. Not a condensed matter physicist nor an optimization theory nerd, so I can't tell you much more, but that's my gut feeling.
From 2015 via Google AI:
"We found that for problem instances involving nearly 1000 binary variables, quantum annealing significantly outperforms its classical counterpart, simulated annealing. It is more than 10^8 times faster than simulated annealing running on a single core. We also compared the quantum hardware to another algorithm called Quantum Monte Carlo. This is a method designed to emulate the behavior of quantum systems, but it runs on conventional processors. While the scaling with size between these two methods is comparable, they are again separated by a large factor sometimes as high as 10^8."
Elimination means removal of something. Eradication means it will never come back. So maybe they meant (or should have meant) that the risk of exponential spread has been eliminated.
What worries me is the consolidation of great resources in the hands of one party. We know from our collective experience since forever that concentration of any resource does not give us resilience.
My own comfort is in knowing that this virus can be kept at bay if my immune system is strong enough, and as a mindful engineer and a living being I understand which behaviors are optimal for health and which are harmful... and in these times I am conditioned to maximize helpful behaviors and minimize harmful ones.
We have to stay on top of it regardless of age. My kid now takes her C, D, Zinc and we've gone on a sugar cleanse (sugar has been found to impair the immune system, depending on your tolerance for it)
I understand. But a significant percentage of people keep voting for stooges and corporatists. What do you call that? Maybe not your self but the collective self is responsible, no?
<< society is selforganized. There is no oppression.>>
Self-oppression? Sure. But it does not mean that oppression doesn't exist. It's just that it is self caused, and self here refers to society as a whole. Oppression exists whether it's self-inflicted or inflicted by one/many upon another/others.
I suppose redundant communication channels (that go over different network modalities, e.g, data center native, satellite, 5G, etc) can be used to recover from network partition. Still, having a protocol with at-least-once delivery guarantee is important as it assures that no messages are lost due to unexpected crash of sender/caller or receiver/callee.
The post you're replying to does list compensating transactions (a form of rollback)
One gotcha that is not covered by Sagas (I could be wrong) is when one or many of the network paths involved in the distributed tx become unreachable (network partition event) and you have no idea of the state of that part of the tx. Do you re-try that part and risk sending the same instruction twice (ok in some cases but not all) vs risk of having sent no instruction? If I had to implement a distributed tx I would first verify my mental model using TLA+ and use a (persistent) transactional messaging system with at-least-once delivery as the backbone, and make other accommodations for such scenarios.
Sorry, it took me a while to catch up on the latest developments in webrtc and write my response. If I had seen yours first, I would not have replied redundantly.
Chrome (and maybe other browsers, too) no longer share local IP address. They share the mDNS address instead, which is often generated and registered locally by the browser. It's used only if the peers are on the same network. Else, it's useless but it used to be provided to all peers and malicious websites and they stopped doing that (speaking for those browsers that support mDNS)
Public IP Leak in VPN SOLVED:
In Chromium version 48+, you can set webRTCIPHandlingPolicy to default_public_interface_only which means that any VPN proxy will carry WebRTC media (over UPD if it supports UDP or else over TCP, which impacts quality of transmission)
Your VPN provider just has to provide a Chrome extension to do the above or advise you to do that yourself. That way, the VPN's proxy IP address is what's visible to STUN, not the user's public IP address.
There is also a more elaborate way around it, but the above should work.
Yesterday (you can look in my comment history) I ran into a situation where the person doing the down-voting turned out to be basing it on their opinion not fact (after they finally stated their opinion on the matter, which contradicts peer-reviewed research on the topic, I realized why they were down voting: insufficient depth of understanding of the topic) and no one came after them to correct the situation...
Either have people explain why they down-voted or have a Talk page where people can discuss their reasons, complain, etc, behind the scene.