Perhaps many would have refused to donate if they knew that the project would be archived in a year. Collecting for audit and then archiving the project is, in a way, a violation of expectations.
Depends on your perspective... If I'd known the project was going to stop soon after I donated, I probably wouldn't donate, even if the purpose of the money was strictly for an audit.
Would they have refused to donate if they knew the author would be hit by a bus in a year? Or hired by someone who refused to allow them to continue working on it?
I don't think the author had explicit plans to do this a year ago.
A team of developers from Harvard has announced a breakthrough in the field of quantum computer development - they have managed to solve one of the problems of achieving quantum superiority. According to scientists, the processor developed by them is resistant to errors and is able to overcome the noise that arises during the operation of such systems - the discovery paves the way for the production of large-scale logic processors.
I came to see if this had been posted given I hadn't seen it. Surprised this didn't get more attention, it's a very impressive result – and not just because it involved arrays of entangled qubits flying around each other. I watched Mikhail Lukin present this result at a Berkeley EECS seminar earlier this week. It's very compelling work and, as someone with one foot in the QIS field, I've been thinking about it quite a bit. A few observations for any future finders of this post:
- Neutral atoms, while always compelling, are now strongly in the running for state-of-the-art qubit technologies and may well have a durable superiority to other qubits (e.g. ion traps, superconducting, spin qubits, photonics). The photonics used for quantum control appear to have very powerful advantages over physical wire-based control common to spin and superconducting qubits in particular.
- The past few years, since 2019 really, have been incredibly exciting on the experimental side of the field (not that the TCS hasn't been exciting too – quite the contrary). Still, for me, this result and its timing is among the most surprising in this 4 year period. I don't I"m unique in this and I suspect that if you'd asked most folks in the QIS field on December 5th when we'd have a FTQC that can do something a classical HPC can't – even if not practical – they likely would have said somewhere between 5-15 years. Now, the path towards truly practical FTQC is clear and, with the accelerating progress, we'll likely see meaningful scientific advances due to QC technologies by the end of this decade, likely earlier.
- QC is, in many ways, a trailing technology to AI and quite exotic. While the use cases are different, the fact of the matter is that the advances in AI methods, and LLMs in particular, threaten to eat QC's lunch in many areas of scientific computing. Further, there are properties of quantum information that challenge many potential applications (e.g. no cloning theorem). In my mind, this is the greatest risk to QC technologies not gaining wide spread adoption across many STEM over the next 20 years.
- Even though QC may be practically challenged relative to AI, it is nonetheless (and likely will be for many decades to come) an incredibly verdant technological foundation for algorithm development, condensed matter physics, cosmology, etc. The quantum information paradigm is very different than the classical information; those differences provide a powerful lens to help us understand our world and universe.
It is abuse no matter how it was obtained or shared, because it is an affront to the basic dignity of that child.
I would go further and argue a lot of adult produced porn is also abusive (often exploiting people in desperate situations) but we have to arbitrarily draw the line somewhere. This is a big reason why I've stopped viewing most live-action porn entirely and enjoy drawn/animated/written erotica instead.
I wrote these explanations because many people do not even see the difference between the things mentioned above, although there is definitely a difference. Not noticing the difference leads people to false conclusions.
You here means anyone watching it, but interesting to see you get so defensive. The idea that you think "watching CP != abuse" is suspicious to begin with.
I wasn't, but it would be reasonable to accuse you of being a pedophile based on this.
What is "child pornographer" btw? Is it the one who produces? Is it the one who distributes?
Sharing CP != child abuse. Viewing CP != child abuse. Storing CP != child abuse. I want to defend CP viewers. Children can suffer during production (but not always: teenagers can film themselves, for example, i.e. make home videos just like adults). But no one suffers directly during the storage, viewing and distribution of files.
Very interesting:
Should I still use nohang in addition to prelockd and memavaild?
I mean prelockd could/should trigger the OOM earlier but nohang would still catch it earlier thanks to PSI?
What about zram and zswap advantages?
BTW you're helping making the world to be a better place but only nerds download those tools. It would help even more if you could lobby such tools as default in distros such as manjaro, arch, Ubuntu, fedora, etc
Perhaps many would have refused to donate if they knew that the project would be archived in a year. Collecting for audit and then archiving the project is, in a way, a violation of expectations.