"They're afraid and prefer to avoid facts, details and truth in favor of their own indoctrinated perspective." - This quite easily could also be the definition of someone who believes in God, souls and supernatural forces. Anyway, I respect your opinion.
I just believe that individuals are born with unique intellects. Each one thinks differently. Each brain, is creative and is entitled to believe in their own ideas first. However, one thing that lies undeterred which is, our ability to question things and ideas. Question our own ideas for that matter. Questioning things makes us wiser undoubtedly.
Questioning things has brought us to all the technological & scientific advancements that we enjoy today. Unfortunately, I do feel, that believers in the God/souls/supernatural, question much less, almost never. Therefore, while the field of science, has seen multiple iterations of ideas - One scientist comes up with an idea, it's accepted and then another scientist comes up with a better idea which gets accepted. Scientists keep debunking their own ideas from time to time, thus unravelling the truth further. Whereas, this rarely seems to be the case in the field of religion.
yes! I've been playing around with this while writing this guidebook, and I highly recommend all readers to try it out too, once you've gotten familiar with quantum gates. I'll very likely be adding quantum circuits and their results (from IBM), in an upcoming guidebook discussing some really cool quantum algorithms.
Well, I kind of knew that people might associate the increment in computing power with that required in their daily computing needs like watching Youtube videos for example; for the same reason I made sure to explicitly mention in the Introduction, that -
"it [Quantum Computers] promises tremendous computing power enough to help us solve some really tough mathematical problems that are holding back our progress in a number of fields."
We built the editing tool for our users who would like to create Searchtrack guides to break down and express their knowledge. Unfortunately, it's not an open-source software. You can however request an invite to access it after signing up.
Thanks for letting me in on your experience. :)
We totally believe that when information around a topic is broken down into bite-sized slide-like chapters its much less overwhelming to consume than everything dumped on a single page.
We are trying to give the authors an ability to contain the contents of a single slide within user view. Our editor is freshly released, so hopefully a future release soon enough would let educators do that and with some interaction features as well.
Hi! I put this guide together and I'm really glad you brought this point up. When I thought of creating this guide, I wanted to make it really easy for beginners to graduate level by level up to quantum gates, which inspired me to instead break the information down in a series.
This Part-1 guide in the series is mean't to educate even complete noobs from how a basic computer works and how we have reached the limits of making them any more powerful. While you are accurate when you say Quantum algorithms can help us exploit the quantum behaviour of qubits, we are particularly interested and motivated to utilize them because we can exponentially increase our computing power.
I have another follow-up guide coming that would take the readers a few more levels up very soon.
I think the "hacker-centric" culture has a lot to do with that. It definitely seems technology companies should if nothing else, at the least, identify "technology & their hackers" as their core competencies. Only when they do that will they create a culture like Google, Facebook because ideas to open-source internal tools and seeing the potential in it can only come from hackers. I had read once, that Facebook keeps jumping their hackers from one project to the other every few months to expose them to fresh ideas. Hackers do love building new things all the time; Facebook has probably cracked this.
I never knew the cofounders of Reddit were first on to building something else. That part just still makes me wonder what would have happened if Paul Graham had not accepted them and they would have kept working on the first idea. Life and luck work in mysterious ways I guess.
That line got me mind-boggled too. But I realized the English people spoke and specially wrote back in the day was quite verbose and the sentence construction was obviously quite elaborate.
To help you out, I think that line equates to - "Considering two coordinate systems that are moving in uniform motion of parallel translation relative to each other ("which we now conveniently call an Inertial Reference Frame"), the laws governing the movement of a physical body is independent of which of the 2 systems you choose."
Which also equates to - "The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another "
I think the blockchain helps the transactions overcome trust issues due to fraudulent nodes on the decentralized network and thus there is a requirement of a complete copy of all the transactions to be present on each of the nodes.
In a brain however, we may consider the neurons to be ideal nodes which will never act fraudulently. So if some data is stored on a neuron, all other neurons can completely trust that the data will not be tampered (due to lack of any motivation for a neuron to act fraudulently).
That means we could skip the blockchain database part completely because 'trust' is naturally present in the network.
Also now I'm not sure if there remains any further scope for us to apply the idea of decentralized operations to the functioning of the brain's neural network.
Do point out if any ideas pop into your mind.
Applying the idea of decentralization on a network of neurons was what I got curious about. But I understand the blockchain is what makes the decentralization work in the first place. And I agree, the idea of blockchain is to maintain this continuously growing database of transactions on every node. And if neurons have to work like a decentralized system, they've got to have a blockchain like storage. That doesn't seem workable like you pointed out. :)
Since this seems like a question that many founders go through while building their business, I compiled a list of best links (that i could find) for understanding the aspects of finding a technical cofounder.
Hope it helps the community! Do share any other interesting links that you feel might be added to the list.
I'm baffled.
Is it "feeling" "frustrated" with my request now?
Anyone else seeing this pattern?
Is this normal behaviour?
I'm spooked.