So...noscript then.

They seem particularly unreliable when asked to tell the difference between a headmaster and a fundamental rule.

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.

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.

Interestingly, Finnish government was planning to move election systems to Amazon's cloud, but the plan was just recently cancelled due to public outcry. https://www.heise.de/en/news/F...

Topography, schmopography. Just load the oil onto trucks, the same way Trump suggested working around the Hormuz strait situation.

Balloons are powered by hot air. What better way to generate it than a room full of AI-enhanced suits?

Seriously, though, the story of Banksy being Robin Gunningham has been out for years, so that part is nothing new.

RIAA should be after all the people who illegally distribute music to others with their speakers.

Europe's first lithium mine just opened in Finland a couple of weeks ago.

Also, why are people comparing the ingredients of a battery — which is recharged a thousand times — against petrol, which you need to extract and process anew for every fscking "charge". I keep seeing this over and over, and I'm never sure if it's a new level of stupid, or just a very hairy troll under a very large bridge.

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I also notice that the Hormuz Strait is being closed. Gas guzzler owners all over the world are whining over rising oil prices, while the civilized world is moving into energy sources that don't depend on access to conflict areas. The grandparent whines about China, but it's not exactly the sole source of Lithium. They even opened a mine here in Finland.

3.11 for workgroups

> You can't fix it by "not letting stupid people breed", you have to fix it through not letting people become stupid

This sentence seems to be somewhat self contradictory. Despite decades of trying to make it not so, it seems that intelligence remains primarily inherited from parents/ancestors.

Socioeconomic status, education, opportunities, etc all have no ability to improve iq. Nutrition only matters in the sense of malnutrition. So environmental factors can reduce IQ, but they cant do anything to raise it.

Attempting to "fix" it, which we have been doing in the first world for a while now, seems to be causing average intelligence to drop precipitously. the peak IQ in most nations is now firmly in the past 30-70 years back. I think we just have to give up on the idea that this is something to "fix" per se, and let people make their own choices as individuals.

Did you mean: NASSA?

Also, does anyone remember when web browsers were considered thin clients? I think the last time this was true was in the late 00s with netbooks. Then, more than a decade before the Al craze, browsers became these turbocharged Javascript engines that need multiple gigabytes of RAM to run.