fxwin

I'll be honest i read your repository's README.md and still have no idea what this is supposed to be. The tagline sounds like it's for implementing MCP servers, but the endpoints specified further down aren't part of MCP but something more specific (to MCPs serving a language model? Why would we serve them like that?)

Also doesn't really seem to relate to the OP beside the term 'MCP' in the title

If i predict that my next dice roll will be a 5 with 16% certainty and i do indeed roll a 5, was my prediction wrong?

I feel like the implication was fairly clear here (Or maybe not "extremely" clickbaity as far as headlines are concerned)

How does the paper from [0] show that Aaronson doesn't understand Grover's algorithm? What level of "understanding" are you looking for here?

There are people who are reluctant to ask for help with things (i know i can be), and end up wasting time trying random (non-)solutions. The standup puts these people "on the spot" and enables them to move forward within a reasonable timeframe.

I've had the same experience with writing non-code text. I often use VSCode to write markdown documents on various things and having Copilot chime in to complete my mealplan for the week with 5 different kinds of chicken wraps is a weird feeling lol

The same arguments can be made for free trade, and i think most would agree that the world is better off with international trade than without.

I don't think anyone has a problem with europe being a more independent player, it becoming a necessity is what people are upset about. I'd rather have germany make massive investments in infrastructure and health reform than its military.

Is this comment AI-generated?

Yea i hate this trend. I can understand why one would do it for text-only blogs/articles, but for something like this? The actual product already looks really good, adjust some colors or lighting and that's perfect for a title image

except you don't have time to do that in the moment, since you're busy scribbling down formulas trying to keep up

Seems like they're not available to non-students, but I'm happy to be proven wrong

> Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!).

I'm not sure if you're aware, but you're arguing my point. Without contextualizing the numbers, the headline tells us only that not everybody has the same amount of X.

> It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people.

The sloganeering and lack of explaining which numbers qualify as "gross" and which as acceptible and worth striving for under headlines like this is precisely what I'm criticizing. Is it still gross inequality if the top 10% own 60% of wealth? 50%? 20%?

Thanks!

What is "fair" is a complicated question (and i'm not sure what this question has to do with my comment)

I haven't read the examples you mentioned, do they point toward the source of the instability being extreme inequality, or the lower (economic) classes being unable to survive in dignified conditions? (read: can we tolerate great inequality if it comes with increased standards of living for everyone?)

> The optimal distribution is left as an open question for future research.

What makes you think the optimal distribution is "more uniform" rather than less? I'm not taking sides in this question, simply pointing out that the headline is rather meaningless without context

That statement had nothing to do with taxes or inheritance (or any specific financial process in fact). It was simply a (admittedly rather reductive) mathematical statement, which remains true independently of the nature of the underlying good.

My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful without contextualizing why (if) this is a bad thing, and what x and y should be for a given z.

In any kind of non-uniform distribution of any good, the top x % will always own a disproportionate (wrt to headcount) amount of it (In economic systems, this mathematical fact is further amplified by other factors such as financial literacy and leverage). What's always missing to me in these types of discussions is what this value should be at, and what the distribution should look like qualitatively (i.e. what should the ideal Lorenz curve look like).

Is there any discussion/research/case study analysis where this is explored? I.e. overall citizen satisfaction/economic productivity and how it relates to wealth distribution?

This just reads like a fluff piece to advertise their own products, and the conclusions in the summary are the kind of vague handwavey promises AI bros have been making for the past 3 years

> Take our own experience: Neartail competes with Shopify and Square, and it’s built by one person. Formfacade is a CRM that competes with HubSpot—built by one person.

Would like it better if claims like this were backed up by numbers.

you're not who i asked, but this is a terrible name (too broad vs. the rather precise term of pqc)

What would you like them to call it instead?

Then i wouldn't call them computers, just like i wouldn't call experiments with single quantum gates computers. But if a physics experiment utilizes quantum processes to factorize a number (even if it's only the number 21), then I'd call that a computation, and the experimental setup a computer.

You missed the number 15360 on p12, which is mostly what i was referring to.

What were they used for?

> Real progress in this field is very easy to measure. It's based on number of effective qbits of computation.

Plenty more progress measures (decoherence, gate fidelity/error rates) to use that we have made significant progress in over the last 10 years.

Is it really that strange when the slides themselves pretty emotionally charged?

This seems like a rather pedantic distinction unless you go with "Computer = von neumann architecture", in which case the category becomes rather strict (Are FPGAs/analogue computers physics experiments too?). If we assemble a physics experiment to obtain a result that exists at a meaningful level of abstraction from the physical processes themselves (like factoring a prime number using quantum processes, or adding numbers using transistors), it seems appropriate to call this experiment a computer.

Even if i agreed with you that full words/phrases were easier to parse, any gains made here are easily offset by how much harder and laborious it is to manipulate them on paper

the vast majority of mathematical equations/terms would become completely unreadable if you replaced single symbols with descriptive terms. You are going to have to internalize what the symbols refer to anyways to understand the formula, and once that is accomplished any additional description is a waste of space and cognitive bandwidth.