Got a reference that says that collapsing the state of one particle has any effects on the other? I haven't seen any.

More like, if special relativity holds, FTL and time travel are the same thing. If you're unwilling to allow time travel, then, yes, FTL and special relativity are incompatible. If special relativity holds, there is no preferred frame of reference, and FTL in multiple frames of reference can go backwards into time. Clearly, time travel implies FTL, since we can send a package to Alpha C in a way that takes a thousand years, and have it hop back nine hundred and ninety-nine.

This applies to anything FTL: starships, telepathy, quantum entanglement, whatever. To me, it looks like special relativity is unlikely to be found false, and I don't think time travel is going to be possible, so I don't believe FTL is at all likely.

https://xkcd.com/221/

for example.

Cybersecurity is unique (or at least unusual) in the sense that, as long as nothing happens, they look mostly superfluous and like a prime target for budget cuts. It's also very hard to quantify: if I cut your departmental budget by 10%, how does that effect our likelihood of being pwned?

However, there are real-world consequences for missing something in lots of other jobs. When I worked on electrical distribution monitoring systems, I was told that, in Britain, line workers were nowhere near as cautious. Therefore, if I marked a particular line as unpowered when it was, I might kill someone. In another job, I wrote programs that wrote gcode for the mills, and those things can be dangerous. I loved the warning sticker on the outside, which said that the enclosure was not necessarily going to stop anything from flying out of the machine and killing someone.

Ah, people who think it's the best thing since sliced peanut butter and people who have endless problems with it. You'd think Microsoft wrote it.

Heck, in defiance of /. tradition, the summary notes the current record holder and gets it right.

Seems to me that world leadership was pretty much offered to the US in the second half of WWI. Despite the general ineffectiveness of US armies until the very end, Wilson became first among equals in negotiations. The Germans called for an armistice based on Wilson's Fourteen Points (seems to me they should have read them before doing that, but I'm not a diplomat).

After that, the US effectively withdrew from world leadership, and for at least some of the interwar period took a really annoying moralistic diplomatic stance. Wilson wanted to join the League of Nations, but couldn't get it through the Senate, and the country went isolationist. The US became the world leader in WWII (again, out of proportion with our actual contribution, big as that was), and kept that leadership until 2017.

Got any evidence of significant fraud? Recounts typically move fewer than a thousand votes around, not changing the outcome. (They can in very close races, which happened in no state in 2020.) The rest is pure speculation. Republican-appointed judges and Republican officials are saying the vote was clean.

I used to ride the bus with a guy who read Playboy for the articles. He was blind, and read the Braille edition.

Gold and silver have intrinsic values not related to their value as money, so I'd put the origin of money without significant intrinsic value a lot earlier than that. Gold was like a fiat currency, in that its value depended primarily on what you could buy with it.

Science doesn't compel anything. Scientists didn't compel shoe stores to install fluoroscopes, or compel watch companies to hire people to put radium on the arms. That was business, and businesses are rarely concerned with scientific truth (they're much more concerned with what effects the science they can't cover up or deny have on profits).

Bitcoin has some properties that are definitely undesirable in money. Money also needs to be a somewhat stable store of value most of the time, and Bitcoin fails at that. It's far too volatile. The volatility also affects currency exchanges, who need to hold enough Bitcoin for their operations. It also can't be spent most places. Money is worth what you can buy with it, and there's a vast array of things I can't buy with Bitcoin but can easily buy with dollars. Bitcoin is deflationary, which doesn't disqualify it as money, but means that using it as a basis for an economy is suboptimal.

The best way to view Bitcoin is as a commodity.

I can see crashes coming without being able to time them. I think Bitcoin is going to crash at some point. I have no idea when. If I did, I would short it then.

Bitcoin has advantages over conventional currencies only when financial institutions let it, or haven't caught up. They have advantages of scale.

Suppose I want to send money to someone in Germany. I buy a certain amount of Bitcoin with dollars, transfer it to my contact, and my contact sells it for marks. There are two currency conversions and three transfers of ownership taking place. The transfer of ownership is deliberately computationally expensive. It is possible to have services that streamline the service, but they are functionally identical to banks.

Now, suppose I transfer it via a bank. There is one transfer of ownership, which can be very fast, and one currency conversion. Clearly, the bank can do the transfer faster and easier and cheaper than Bitcoin can. If the bank doesn't, it's because it's taking excess profits or being inefficient, and both of those can change.

One positive thing Bitcoin has done is that it has exposed inefficiencies and extra profit-taking in banks.

Last I checked, there was a Mac Mini with the M1. It would have been tempting if it had had enough SSD or hard drive space.