So glad I switched from Fitbit to Garmin. Google has done everything possible to lose me as a customer.
Speaking as a motorcycle rider, ebikes are dangerous. Not because of the bike but because of the riders. They often don't wear safety gear, they don't follow traffic laws, and many bikes top out at 70-80kph. It took considerable effort to get my Class M. A bike going that fast should require licensing and safety courses and helmet laws. Most people don't realize they can squid out on the road on an ebike just like you will on a motorcycle without proper gear.
I just installed Fedora 44 on my old Win10 laptop. Because Microsoft made sure this perfectly good laptop with 16gb RAM could not run Win11. And Affinity Suite runs great on wine now. And no obnoxious telemetry tracking. Oh yeah, for games: steam and lutris too.
Yeah yeah yeah, linux linux linux
still, Microsoft is in self-destruct mode.
There have been 535 brainless clones in Washington, D.C. for a long time.
The principle problem with humans is that they're completely unreliable, due to basic design.
They seem particularly unreliable when asked to tell the difference between a headmaster and a fundamental rule.
QCs are completely unsuitable for reversing hashes and that is what cracking passwords needs.
Translation: we don't currently have a quantum algorithm for reversing hashes. But there was a time, not that long ago, when we didn't have a quantum algo for factorization either. However, I don't expect to see a quantum algo for hash reversion any time soon, because the whole problem of reversing hashes is pretty complex.
Factorization as a classical problem is essentially trivial, in that there are very simple classical algorithms for it. They just take a lot of time to run. But coming up with an efficient quantum algorithm was not trivial, and the algorithm itself isn't so simple. So you can estimate that a quantum version of any algorithm is a lot more complex than the classical counterpart.
"quantum resistant forever" is too strong.
I've only taken fairly general master's level courses in quantum information and regular cryptography, but I agree with this overall sentiment. My math professors used to say that no asymmetric encryption scheme has been proved unbreakable; we only know if they haven't been broken so far. Assuming something is unbreakable is like saying Fermat's last theorem is unprovable — until one day it's proved. So to me "post quantum cryptography" is essentially a buzzword.
Planes are powered by kerosene.
Balloons are powered by hot air. What better way to generate it than a room full of AI-enhanced suits?
"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"