Basically, what skybrian has, in a rather short way, said. As far as I have been able to find out over the years, quantum entanglement "does" operate at speeds greatly exceeding that of the speed of light, but, because of the weird properties of quantum mechanics, no "operation" that could ever be used to transfer data between two sets of particles is possible.
So while they "are" entangled, they are apparently not entangled enough in a stable way such that a change to atom A would be picked up as a new change to atom B (thus, having successfully transferred some sort of information), because the quantum state breaks down somehow.
While the article you reference is quite good, if I do say so, as it points out many aspects of how people 'exude' superiority more than they actually are 'superior', or 'more talented' than others, straight up saying that "Talent is a myth" is none-sense. Your view should be more nuanced.
I'm not going to go through and analyze the undoubtedly dense original research, but if the click-baitey headline is correct, this does seem like a huge jump in our grasp on reality.
From how long have we thought that quantum particle's "leaps" were random, and part of the inherent unpredictability of quantum reality? How long has popular culture around "quantum randomness" been ingrained in our inner imaginations of how the world worked?
How can something like this even conceptually make sense? I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how a neural network could approximate physically-deduced laws of nature (as had-coded into the classical simulator as I imagine) "without any distinguishable error"?
This is the biggest bs I have ever heard, since an molecular physics simulator that is beat by a neural network can only just be unoptimized as hell.
dalbasal, I feel like you're quietly sitting on a fascinating analysis of a facet of the modern economy. Mind sharing the sources of your knowledge so I can learn about it myself, either in the form of books, or articles?
On the contrary, blocking ads online is morally bankrupt.
You presented analogies, which I will respond to if you respond to my question at the conclusion.
With the case of billboards, it was never expected nor included in any societal contract that you are supposed to look at them: their sole purpose is to accidentally grab your attention, not mandate it.
With newspaper ads, as above, it was never mandated for you to look at them except incidentally as you flip through. Even after deciding to tear them up, you still had to have looked at them for a moment, at which point they have succeeded in doing all they ever tried to do.
With tv ads, I refer to the exact same reasoning used above.
Now for my question. Since adblock is most prominently used in the context of youtube, answer this - why should you be able to enjoy youtube's content for free without giving anything back to youtube? Are they a charity? And why shouldn't they choose the method by which you give back to them (via watching ads), since it is their platform?
Advertising can cross the line in many cases allowing for the self-defense of ad-blockers, but blocking all ads on principle is an even more dangerous, immoral line of reasoning.
That's a valid counterpoint and one I'd be open to discussing. However, my own experiences support the owner you're replying to.
I also possess a 2013 MBP with a Retina screen, proudly running well all these years later after many AAA games, overclocking, and innumerable HD repartionings. However, I broke my MBP's screen twice, and both times I called the closest Apple repair shop, and once the main "independent" repair ship in my city, and all three times the price came back as a nice, round $1000: nearly half of the original price!
So I looked around online (always had been vaguely aware of Right-to-Repair, and ifixit.org). After reading the excellent repair guide online and ordering what seemed a high-quality screen online, the repairs, which cost me no major headache or extreme difficulty, materially ended up costing around $300. Also, I want to mention that the aforementioned ifixit guide listed the highest difficulty grade to this type of repair.
So you are telling me, someone that had never engaged in computer or mechanical repairs before in his life, performed $700 of labor in just under an hour? No, the likelier answer is that Apple is simply rent-seeking in the sector of product repairs.
I know this is a digression from the current discussion on how well the devices work, but as a stats student who just learned about estimating using log-likelihoods, could you give some more info on how that is inferior to the Bayesian model (since I've heard the exact opposite is true)?
This is interesting. But I wonder what differences it hopes to attain vs. Numba's CUDA support for NumPy, which seems to work pretty well and is under active development.