"developed an annoying permanent yaw to the left, for which calibration has not worked to solve or alleviate"
I had exactly the same fault on my first Saitek X55. After some back and forth I got it replaced under warranty. A few months later that replacement had all the stick buttons stop working unless I twisted it 1/3 left or right. The initial attempt to solve that was a replacement stick handle (it's designed to be removed so you can change the re-centering spring, they supply 4 different ones). THAT handle had the same twist/rudder off-centre issue.
So they replaced the entire thing with an X56, which is mostly an X55 still, just a couple of new analogue thumbsticks replacing the old throttle mouse and one of the stick buttons (although that stick is also clickable as a button still).
I'm not confident, should I actually use it, that the X56 will have no issues before the 2 year warranty period is up.
In other words, I don't think Logitech can actually make the product quality worse.
As you can see, Microsoft is making this change not only to Win32 software but also to Windows Store applications, as they’re playing an essential role for the future of Windows. Application manifests, which are mostly resources included in every executable file for compatibility reasons, will require apps to add a mention of this new policy, thus making sure that they support a path longer than 260 characters.
This means that unless it’s specified, the change won’t be supported, so apps will need to be updated by developers to benefit from this new behavior.
So, no, this shouldn't cause an issue unless a developer is stupid enough to put the required manifest information in without actually ensuring the code can handle the longer paths/filenames.
Less has always been used in English with counting nouns. Indeed, the application of the distinction between less and fewer as a rule is a phenomenon originating in the 18th century.
So, for over 200 years now then, I think that makes it current usage.
Someone more able to work in the detail of QM should comment.
Off the top of my head: I guess this is saying that if when they measure in this manner the result comes out in a certain way they know the photon still has an un-collapsed wave function? Presumably if it had a definite state it would be either vertically or horizontally polarised ? I'm still not sure that the wave function of the 'second' particle will actually show locally as having collapsed just because the 'first' particle was measured. It's just that when you perform a full measurement you'll get the complementary value.
As you say... where's the experiment to test this? I'm spouting "currently accepted theory in layman's terms", and it's possible that will be proven incorrect.
Technically you would only know, in an FTL sense, that the particle at the other location had the opposite value. Just because you agreed that a certain state of that certain particle would mean a certain action was taken/not taken doesn't mean that the other person didn't change their mind, or wasn't prevented from carrying out the agreed-upon course of action.
You'd still only know if using some light-speed limited communication means to verify the outcome.
What makes you think that the second particles wave function has collapsed, so far as you're concerned locally, before you force it to by attempting measurement? Entanglement only means that once one of the particles is measured the other when measured will have the complementary value.
Please, honestly, give me a citation from somewhere/one trustworthy about this detection of wave function collapse without the particle interacting such that the entanglement has been destroyed. An repeatable, verifiable experimental result would be ideal.
Let's assume you have a whole bunch of entangled pairs set up, so that you can consult one per day, month, year, whatever. That still doesn't help. When Twin A checks his particle 1 and sees it has (spin, polarisation, whatever) value +1 all you know is that when Twin B measure their matching particle they'll get value -1. That's it. A did not, and cannot choose that his particle measures as +1 rather than -1. All entanglement means is that the pair of particles will have complementary values measured.
And, no, you can't assign life event, decisions, or any other information to which particle you measure out of the set. Then Twin B would need to measure them all to see... what? Which has changed? No, that doesn't work because the moment you measure any of the entangled particles you lose the entanglement. Measure them all, record the state, measure them all later... oops, now the measurements are no longer correlated with the state of the particles with Twin A. You literally have no idea if Twin A measured any of them without using a (maximally) light-speed conventional connection to ask.
The problem is that:
Thus all you can actually transmit using such a system is a random stream of data, with the knowledge that the matching data at the other end is complementary (and thus can be used to derive what you have). Also, this assumes no-one trying to intercept the transmitted particles in the middle. If you don't get your implementation correct it's possible to do so without detection, or for that to be detectable precisely because it broke the entanglement and thus you don't even have a complementary data set.
The IBM 2250 is impressive ... if you compare it with a system selling for a tenth its price. -- D. Cohen