Comparing the Chinese results with the American results, it seems that raising the wattage by a factor of 50 raises the thrust by a factor of 15000. That's somewhat hard to believe. On the other hand, the linked pdf from the Chinese team suggests that at just 3 times the wattage of the American group, they got 1500 times the thrust. I think there is some confusion somewhere.
It's an important question because the article claims "The applications for a device that functions as these appear to would basically replace every form of transportation and thrust invented by humans to date. Such a device would easily be used to make cars, planes, bikes, boats, etc., all more efficient, clean, and cheap." Given that the thrust required for a car would be something like 40,000N, unless the device scales far better than linearly, you'll need a 25GW power station in your car to even make it go.
NASA did acknowledge that at the power level the American team tested, thrust is generated in a more omnidirectional manner, which is focused into a directional jet as power levels are increased, so that might account for some of it.
Fly hearts are unrelated to mammal hearts. Flies belong to a completely different phylum. Pretty much everything about the organs of flies is different to humans. They don't have lungs, they don't have a brain, but a cerebral ganglion, they don't have a full stomach, but a stomodaeum, etc. More importantly, they don't have oxygen rich blood or red blood cells. I realise that flies are often used for genetic studies that have implications for humans, but I very much doubt this study says anything much about human heart health.
There are things we can do with flies that we simply cannot do with humans. Doing the research in flies is often a way for us to get an idea of how things may work in humans and others. Also, while we are physiologically different, we have quite a bit in common at the cellular level.
The trade-off of relevance to humans, and short generations (a day) seems to be best with fruit flies. I'm sure scientists have worked out what areas of research have worthwhile comparisons with mammals.
I would only use this if the first time I appeared on a website it asked me whether I wanted to add it to the list of sites I wanted to explicitly support.
That may seem intrusive, but otherwise this is going to (further) encourage content farms ripping off Wikipedia or just posting random material and optimising the hell out of its rankings (yes I know Google actively tries to stop this, but it just doesn't work well enough).
It's really important to distinguish money coming directly out of my pocket at someone else's whim, and advertising, where I need not purchase anything if I'm not interested.
The GMP (GNU Multi Precision library) guys found that the hand written assembly sequences (which were already 2-6x faster than that produced by a decent C compiler) could be sped up another factor of 2x by superoptimisation, at least of out-of-order CPUs.
Superoptimisation isn't only feasibly, it is actually quite practical. A factor of 2x across an already highly optimised library can cut your supercomputing budget in a grant by half. Whether you need 1 or 2 million CPU hours can make or break entire projects
These days, however, one can often do better with SIMD instructions. These often don't superoptimise well because the individual atomic operations they perform aren't able to be rearranged by the programmer. However, lots of existing supercomputers available for research still don't have chipset revisions with decent SIMD support.
I don't think this will be as successful as you might hope. Consider how many possible sets of rules there are. Call that n. The instruction sequence will need to encode log2 n bits of data, but you have no ability to tune the representation to say which inputs are likely.
Instructions aren't free, they still need to be loaded from RAM like data.
You mean O(sqrt(n)), not quadratic. And given that the most obvious algorithm there is (check every possible divisor up to sqrt(n)) is O(sqrt(n)) arithmetic operations, I think it is fair to say this is not an important result.
I suppose it is a constant factor better than sqrt(n). But tricks along these lines go back to Gauss, at least.
Edit: ah I see, they claim O(n^2). Well I've never had an O(n^2) primality test before. I will put that in my kit of "do-not-ever-use-this" tools, just in case all my other ones break.
I never had any gluten sensitivity issues until I was in my mid 20s. After a few years of really terrible symptoms a friend suggested I cut gluten out of my diet and my symptoms disappeared completely within two days.
No, I don't believe it was a cause of anxiety. The bloating, excess (trapped) wind and associated discomfort caused very unpleasant sensations which triggered dizziness, panic, etc. If you've every been really constipated, you've had a similar sensation (but without the panic attack I imagine). In my case I had diarrhea though, not constipation.
Another odd one I discovered is jerky video playback (e.g. streaming on the web). That triggers a sense of unreality which can trigger an attack.