You cannot mine Bitcoin with a quantum computer, as there is no quantum algorithm to calculate SHA hashes.
704 karma · joined October 6, 2015
The manufacturer can and will make the device more and more difficult to tear apart, and less modular.
This can partly be a design choice, but also affects the possibility of repairing...
Still, I am not a lawyer but I don’t see how a judge could enforce internal design choices...
I never had to report bad behaviors, but I could just look at the taxi number, displayed clearly near the dashboard, and report it to the taxi company.
I am it that Uber can have minor advantages, but I boycott it due to the huge disadvantages in terms of worker rights.
Also they have been working at a loss to kill competitors: refusing to use Uber means defending your right to choose a service in the future.
For some definition of superior. For instance, Uber is for sure superior in stripping the taxi drivers of their rights.
Saying that “they never achieved much” is a gigantic understatement!!
3.20180108.0+really20170707ubuntu17.10.1
You are right.
> It seems obvious to me that Navier-Stokes can't be a perfectly accurate description of reality, so it should come as no surprise if they turn out to blow up or otherwise behave non-physically.
The mapping between physical reality and Navier-Stokes equations is extremely well understood. We know when they represent an excellent description of the physical world, and we know when they could fail due to the finite number of particle in the fluid.
We also know how they fail, and can estimate corrections due to finite particle number, see for instance the Cunningham correction factor.
We also know that a much more complicated theory, Boltzmann transport equations, would be exact.
It would be surprising if Navier-Stokes equations blew up, because we know they represent most often physical reality up to extremely small, controlled corrections.
> Am I missing something? Why isn't it assumed that they're just a very nice approximation, like Newton's laws pre-relativity? Actually the whole thing reminds me of the ultraviolet catastrophe that preceded quantum physics.
Not really: the ultraviolet catastrophe was a symptom of unknown physics awaiting to be discovered.
We know very well the physics beyond Navier-Stokes, and still we use Navier-Stokes equations for their incredible effectiveness.
Using the full theory (Boltzmann transport equations) would make even the simplest fluidodinamics calculation virtually impossible, while adding a correction on the n-th significant digit, with n much higher than the precision one could reasonably expect.
(I am just ironizing about the title, the content is actually great!)
Not an expert, but if speculative execution has no side effects, not even on timing, then you might as well disable it.
Speculative execution is meant to speed up computations.
That’s why projects like MAME are very important.
Note that the description of the Looking Glass addon was "MY REALITY IS JUST DIFFERENT THAN YOURS."
Note also that I have never activated such add-on.
Now, If I go to about:studies (for those not familiar with SHIELD studies https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/shield) I see the following 'study':
pug-experience Complete • My reality is different than yours
So, there was a Mozilla study, with almost the shame shady description, which DID run by default, at least for some users.
Are the Looking Glass add-on and this SHIELD study completely unrelated? Why do they share the same description? Why is Mozilla using these shady descriptions in the first place?
Probably I am just being paranoid, but Mozilla has done nothing to gain my trust, lately.
Honestly I don't know if that's popular, when using Homebrew and MacPorts I was always installing open source stuff...
- MacPorts does not track you by default with Google analytics.
- MacPorts lives by default in a self-contained directory tree.
- MacPorts tends to be more stable than Homebrew, but that’s just my personal experience.
- I didn’t like the slogans Homebrew used for years, implying MacPorts wasn’t good quality.
If your code avoids UB behavior as specified by the standard it will run in the same way when compiled with any standard-compliant compiler.
> Even if the generated code is clean today regarding UB, you cannot ensure that a new C compiler version won't be introducing such issues.
This is not correct. Undefined behaviour is specified in the standard, and a good compiler-to-C will always generate UB-free code.
Yes you have. If Google is not representing competitors fairly in search results, that's abuse of dominant position.
> If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.
That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.
Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.
How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?
The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...
And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.
And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.
To be honest I think you are misunderstanding Vatican II, but that would open a much longer discussion, so I'll go for a simpler, more direct argument.
A Catholic must believe in the Holy Trinity, i.e. that God is one in three Persons. This is in the latest edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in more than two millennia of doctrine.
In other words: other religions adore different Gods, that don't come in three Persons. According to the Christian doctrine, this is wrong, that is not the true God, and without believing in the Holy Trinity you are not going to Heaven (this is clearly spelled in the Athanasian Creed and in many others documents, has been said many times during the history of the Church, being also confirmed by Vatican II, see also below).
So, it's not a matter of just believing in some vague, universal God. The teaching of the Catholic Church is: either you believe in the Catholic God (one God, three Person, the Son become man, died, resurrected, etc...) or your soul won't be saved.
That's why speaking of only one God may lead to confusion: you may say that the Christian, Islamic and Hindu God are the same, but only one can grant you salvation, so they are not the same!
Other religions have a different concept of God. You may stretch the concept a bit, and consider it as the same God in disguise, however it won't save you soul. That's quite a difference!
(An exception is made for people who didn't get to know the message of Christ in their lifetime, see below.)
> "Today, the Athanasian Creed is rarely used even in the Western Church."
That's right, it is not used in day-to-day celebrations, except once per year.
However it is an authoritative text when it comes to the Catholic doctrine.
Its author, Saint Athanasius, is a Doctor of the Church, i.e. a saint of particular importance when it comes to contributions to theology or doctrine. Actually the main reason he's a Doctor of the Church is because of his Creed.
The main message I was quoting from the Creed, the concept that there cannot be salvation outside the Church, has been repeated over and over during the history of the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
Vatican II has established an exceptions in case of people who never got to know the Gospel during their lifetimes. The main point, that embracing the Christian faith is needed for salvation in case it has been announced to you, is although unmodified.
This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.
> I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists.
Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.
Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.
And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.
I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.
Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.
If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.
You can play a lot with words and philosophical concepts, and concoct funny situations by stretching semantics.
You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.
And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.
> Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement
I am responsible for what I say, not for what you expect or assume. Even less for what you assume from other people's comments.
No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief.
Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level.
On the other hand, I think that the right thing to do, is to bring the discussion on a physical (rather than metaphysical) level, so we all can contribute.
> The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true"
Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this:
> I haven't asked him for details [...] But it worries me, because as far as I can tell Pope Francis is quite keen on being nice to people, and showing mercy and forgiveness. I thought those were central tenets of Christian teaching.
It turns out, as I showed, that there is something more central.
You are absolutely right. But the Catholic faith is not about a literal interpretation of the Bible, is about the so-called depositum fidei, i.e. how the Catholic Church holds and transmits the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You may say that all Catholicism is the interpretation given by "Jesus' later followers".
Of course, when discussing Catholicism, I was implicitly using the Catholic Church's interpretation of Jesus's sayings. It would interesting to discuss if what he meant is what the Church now means.
> 27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Sure. My point there was that faith in God is needed for salvation. It's not just mercy and kindness.
When talking about religion, you can do it in two different ways:
- Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You believe in fairy tales and fiction books", for a Christian it will be "You are going to burn in Hell, and I will laugh at you from Heaven".
- Grownup talk. You try to find an argument which holds both for believers and atheists. That's how a discussion about religion between atheists and believers should be conducted, particularly on a site like HN who values discussion.
Since mathw was wondering why his Christian friend doesn't like Pope Francis, I showed him some contradictions between what the Pope says and does, and the Catholic faith. And I said: "That's the reason why many Catholics don't like the Pope, probably you friend has similar feelings", answering his question.
My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question.
Contrary to you, I didn't make any assessment of the general validity of the system.
My argument (what Pope Francis' says conflicts with the sacred texts) is valid whether you believe in Christ or not.
If you ask respectfully, I see now reason why you won't get a polite reply. Maybe you should avoid the following smug remarks, after age 16 they don't sound as good:
> other than the slightly surreal nature of all these people worrying about interpretations of a fictional document and inspirations from a non-existent entity
Anyway, since we are at it and you seem genuinely interested in details, I will give you my personal details. They may not match what you friend believes, but many Catholics have similar feelings.
As someone who left the Catholic Church because of Bergoglio, I must remind you that the Catholic faith is not just about mercy, forgiveness, kindness. I know many merciful and kind people who are not Catholic. So, when establishing a link between mercy and kindness and the Catholic faith, you have to keep in mind a few points:
- The behavior of a Christian is a consequence of some metaphysical beliefs, of following Christ's teaching and the Holy Bible. It would be an error to consider these consequences as the main trait of a Christian. As the name implies, main trait of a Christian is the belief in Christ.
- It has been reaffirmed many times by the Church that mercy and kindness alone are not enough to save your soul, believing in Jesus Christ is also required.
- Also, the Gospel (Matthew 6,1) advises Christian as follows: “Be careful not to do good deeds in front of other people. Don’t do those deeds to be seen by others. If you do, your Father in heaven will not reward you."
This said, let me come to why I don't like Pope Francis. He's kind, and he's merciful, but he's way too vague about the pillars of the faith.
For instance, in one of the first interviews after he was elected Pope, when asked: "Is there a unique vision of what is the Good?", he replied "Everyone has its own vision of what is Good and what is Bad. And we must encourage him to follows whatever he believes is Good".
This is not Christian. Christianity is about a guy, Jesus Christ, who came to say what is the Good. (John 14,6 "I am the way, the truth and the life")
Pope Francis also repeatedly stated that "there is no Catholic God, there is just one God". Again, this is in contrast with two millennia of teachings, and in particular with the Church dogma that there cannot be salvation outside the Christian faith.
One of the most sacred Christian texts, the Athanasian Creed, begins with the following sentence: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
I could show you many other example of Pope Francis's sloppy statements about the pillars of the Christian faith, but I hope you understand a bit better why many Christian, genuinely, do not like him.
I am happy with my present, however I am surrounded by Venetian culture, everywhere around me, from my native Venetian language, to monuments in my city, from food and traditions to street names in the Venetian language.
Everywhere around me speaks of my Venetian heritage.
Venetian are hard-working people, after WW2 Veneto went from an underdeveloped, rural region to one of the richest regions in Italy, whose per-capita GDP compares with that of the richest German industrial districts.
Still, people always felt deeply bound to their Serenissima roots. It’s not a matter of unhappiness or hard times, it’s a matter of a millennial history that pervades the whole region and cannot be denied.