topmonk

Not if you don't spend time alone with said person otherwise.

If the people that actually understand the issue aren't advocating for its solutions, then who will?

I have a very similar problem as this, but often it's in another language, German or Spanish usually, to boot.

The access I have to mess with other peoples' lives, if I so chose, is amazing.

The title is pretty inflammatory, insinuating Quantum Leap is useless. Further down in the same article:

The paper used the results to estimate that a top supercomputer would need approximately 10,000 years to match what Sycamore did in 200 seconds.

IBM, which developed Summit, says the supercomputer could have done that work in 2 ½ days, not millennia—and potentially even faster, given more time to finesse its implementation.

By that measurement it is still is 1000x faster.

What happened here?

Stop tarnishing his name, he's actually a good guy

There haven't been a lot of species that are all genetic clones of each other until recently, either. Such a condition makes the arrival of a superbug much more likely.

A species entirely made up of genetic clones is what this whole thread is about. I'm surprised you missed this.

This is hard to respond to, because I don't know what you think I think. I don't think viruses have some sort of “neural or neural analog” or coordinate in some way, so I suspect you don't understand what I'm saying.

I just think, on average, an individual virus particle will mutate at a certain rate. If there are a million times the population, a virus as a whole will then mutate 1 million times faster. So, if a certain virus would given a certain mutation, would jump to another species, and that had a certain chance to do so, then that same virus with 1 million times its normal population would have 1 million times the chance to do so.

That's about as spelled out and basic I'm able to make it.

What does the number of ants vs humans have to do with the population of a species ballooning 1 million times its original size?

Said the man after his doctor diagnosed him with a severe risk of heart attack.

> But why would a superbug that takes out all the bananas have any effect on the corn, wheat, etc growing down the road?

Simply, copies.

If a superbug is able to destroy all the world's bananas, it would grow in population 1 million fold to do so. A bacteria or virus with a million times as many members will evolve a million times as quickly.

Given such, a species jump wouldn't be hard to do. And after the first couple, the superbug would likely start to tailer itself to genes that many plant species share, making the next jumps even easier.

Your story doesn't add up. You wouldn't get charged with a DUI if you weren't over the limit, and that takes at least 2 to 3 drinks, minimum.

Why we're you drunk when you were going over to their house? What'd you think was going to happen?

African Americans consist of only 13% of the population yet commit over half of the crimes.

Asians and Whites score much higher on IQ tests than African Americans and Latinos.

Women have innately different interests than men.

Right, and youay ne thinking, let's play the odds. But there is only once chance, so what do odds mean anyway in that scenario? Will you wall away a failure and still take solace in the fact that by the odds you were supposed to be correct?

But if there is only one chance, how can you know what the odds of anything? You have the past, and you have the future and you may prescribe a certain significance to that past for what reason you don't really know. How could you, it just feels right, doesn't it? Your memory, regard8this as truth, it just feels right. But consider.. one point in time and space, in however many dimensions there may be, and the only reason you believe in a certain outcome is feeling that your so called memory is representitive of reality..Wnat evidence do.you have it.is.right? I.claime none.at all. None.ag.all.none.sfall

Yes, but is the amount of methane released anywhere near the same as CO2? Hint: methane is measured in parts per billion, whereas co2 is measured in parts per million.

From the very same wikipedia article you referenced, under "Current Outlook":

Most deposits of methane clathrate are in sediments too deep to respond rapidly, and modelling by Archer (2007) suggests the methane forcing should remain a minor component of the overall greenhouse effect.[28] Clathrate deposits destabilize from the deepest part of their stability zone, which is typically hundreds of metres below the seabed. A sustained increase in sea temperature will warm its way through the sediment eventually, and cause the shallowest, most marginal clathrate to start to break down; but it will typically take on the order of a thousand years or more for the temperature signal to get through.

Methane is measured in parts per billion, co2 in parts per million... So, what is your point?

Methane is a nothing burger. It breaks down so quickly it doesn't affect much.

They need to be close to the surface to get enough sunlight to live.

You also need glucose. With a blood glucose level of zero, you die.

Sure, https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/10/02/starving-cancer-cutting...

No, it wouldn't. Your brain needs glucose to survive and your body will manufacture it if it's not present. If you actually were able to accomplish what you're saying, you'd be braindead.

Thanks, though. I've been using it for a few days and it works great. Really helpful.

> But then, it the nodes are backed by things "costly to create", or better "that everybody owns at most once" that seems fine. > For example it could be backed by some verified social network accounts, or even mobile phone numbers, and if they are in the form of hashes even the anonymity would be preserved.

If you using some central authority to say who is a valid node and who isn't, which you would need for mobile phone numbers, then why bother with trying to decentralize at all? That same central authority can verify transaction are valid. No need for any of this peer validation stuff.

A central authority like that is possible, but I think it would be very hard to get something like that off the ground, in that the government would eventually shutdown whoever was processing mobile phone numbers. Even Facebook is having trouble getting their (centralized) Libra coin signed off by the various governments, and that is a half a trillion dollar company.

The inner-inner paper (the one referenced by the paper referenced by the paper) gets around this problem using a social network, where you have a neighbor Fred that you met in person, who has a Butcher Dave, and so on. This doesn't seem easy as well. PGP email encryption had the same sort of web of trust idea. There are even "signing" parties where a bunch of people get together to verify each others identity. But still, not many people have a PGP key, much less have it verified by the PGP web of trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party

> PPS: the real cost of a Bitcoin node could also be considered the cost to operate it, that is to write a block, and that in turn is costly, which presents the problem and its solution in an elegant unified way.

Well, a node isn't necessarily a miner, and most aren't, actually. One purpose of a node that isn't a miner is to send out transactions on behalf of an individual owner of bitcoin onto the network. Also, a block explorer website would have one to query the blockchain and extract the information to be displayed on its site, and of course an exchange would need a node to perform deposits and withdrawals. Nodes don't have to write blocks, only receive and validate them, and a sybil attacker just needs to create nodes that pretend to validate, it doesn't have to care about having an accurate view of the blockchain. This is very cheap.

In this system, a node would poll a bunch of other nodes to find out whether a transaction occurred or not. If a sybil attacker created 10,000 nodes to link up to the network, who all said the transaction didn't occur, and overwhelmed a victim node, then it could fool that node. So imagine an exchange that was trying to find out if a transaction occurred or not, and a sybil attacker wanted to prevent the exchange from finding out. The sybil attacker might own a bot network with millions of nodes, so that it held 99% of the exchange's connections to the outside world. Any polling of other nodes would always show false, because the sybil attacker drowned out the honest nodes.

In Bitcoin, running a node is not costly. The miner, however, has to solve the next hash in order to write a block. This, as most people know, takes a huge amount of processing power to have a reasonable chance of doing so. The block produced then contains this information, ie proof the hash was solved.

So, again if a sybil attacker held 99.9% of nodes and the exchange node held only one other connection to a node was honest, if that honest node transmitted the block, the exchange's node would see the block had a huge amount of processing power spent on it, and hence must be valid, even if all the sybil attackers nodes said it didn't exist.

Looking at it further, it does a random sampling of nodes. Specifically it depends on https://people.csail.mit.edu/idish/ftp/Brahms-Comnet-Mar09.p... which in turn depends on: https://www.slideserve.com/tara/sybilguard-defending-against...

which means it does not work against sybil attacks. This is a hard problem, and it's sort of disappointing that it's not mentioned in the techxplore.com article you posted. Bitcoin solves this problem, but this paper does not.

Interesting. Here is the actual paper, maybe resubmit? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.01738.pdf

>> Richard Stallman Has Been Vilified by Those Who Don’t Know Him

> Umm.... absolutely not. These quotes (directly from his site) beg to differ:

Do you know him? Aren't you vilifying him?

Having an unpopular opinion isn't grounds for "proper judgement" of being constantly harassed by a mob every time his name is brought up.