It is a little more than that. You can use previously shared entangled bits to do superdense coding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdense_coding. Note that this is a trick that really does only work because amplitudes are complex numbers. The trick would not work if you just had the sort of magic coin in question, or had a pair of magic coins which just highly correlated with each other.

Quantum computers are not magic so they won't help you there either. The no-communication theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem says that you cannot use quantum entanglement to send information faster than the speed of light. The rough intuition here that may help is to imagine two coins which are entangled so that when one fairly flips heads, you know that the next coin flip of the other will be tails. You can do a lot of fun tricks with such a pair of coin, but since they only work on fair flips, you cannot use them to transmit information directly. What's happening with quantum entanglement is a bit more subtle than this coin analogy, since amplitude, the quantum analog of probability, can be a complex number, but for this purpose the coin analogy should be sufficient to understand the basic idea.

I really didn't mind Hallmark movies. However, then they tried to make some Chanuka movies, and the results were borderline antisemitic, with them essentially focusing on how Chanuka was at best a weird other holiday and the true thing that mattered was Christmas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/02/hallmarks-making-some-hanukkah-movies-only-problem-theyre-anti-semitic/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/hallmarks-hanukkah-movies-are-really-christmas-movies-about-how-hanukkah-is-weird/2019/12/23/6246dfcc-21c0-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html. Making films for your own cultural group is one thing, but pretending you are going to make films for other cultural groups and then making it actually functionally bash that other group? Something is then very wrong with you or your audience at that point. Of course, it shouldn't be too surprising that some on the right have complained that Hallmark is too "woke" because they (gasp!) have had gay secondary characters. They've even made their own Hallmark rival channel over essentially that which is even more explicitly Christian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Family.

This looks pretty close to what the rail boom of the late 1860s and early 1870s looked like. Some corporations and investors then did some pretty incestuous stuff of a similar. The resulting bubble pop was devastating to the US economy. But it is notable that even as that bubble popped, the overall amount of rail continued to grow, with almost every major metric (amount of track laid down, number of passenger-miles traveled per a month, number of locomotives, number of overall stations, etc.) barely showing blips as they continued to climb.

This almost seems to be convincing us that the absolute worst statements about Russian culture today are accurate. Invade another country, continue that invasion with warcrimes and drafting of young men to be sent as cannon fodder, barely a whimper. But interfere with a videogame platform, and now we have a protest. Pretty despicable priorities. On the other hand, this may be overly negative; this protest itself seems small, and it may be that people expect less pushback or jailing of protesters about this sort of thing than those protesting the invasion of Ukraine.

The US of AI in x-ray imaging did grow the demand for radiologists That's accurate. That doesn't that AI will necessarily grow jobs in general, or even if it does that AI creating more jobs will not cause enough disruptions that it will take time to shakeout. It is possible for example that a lot of jobs which are being lost to AI now will be temporary as corporations realize more the limits of the technology. It is also possible that what we're seeing now in terms of job losses will become more extreme as the technology improves even further. Predicting what is going to happen here is genuinely very difficult.

Scale matters. And how serious an issue does depend on percentage, not just absolute levels. Moreover, percentage is especially important when one is considering issues of prioritization, where I explicitly compared it to golf. So far, you've doubled down on insulting people rather than making any argument involving sources. It might also occur to you that you are apparently assuming that everyone you disagree must have some dishonest agenda. But if you bothered to actually read my comment with a minimum of good faith understanding, you would not that the comment explicitly notes specific problems from AI data centers, which should suggest to you that the agenda you apparently want to impose on the comment is not accurate. Now, it would be appreciated if you could actually attempt to respond with something resembling reasoning and sources and less insults. But I do appreciate from our prior interactions that is apparently difficult for you to do, so have a good day.

There appear to be two interrelated issues with your sources. (Although thank you for giving sources, which was much more than the person you were replying to did.) First, there's a substantial issue with how representative these environmentalists are from the general movement. The ability to point to specific people doesn't really say much about the movement as a whole (although I will grant there's a decent fraction of the environmental movement which really does seem stuck in a 1970s sort of "degrowth" or "antigrowth" attitude). But you seem to also confuse sources saying "Hey, this is creating a serious problem" and not wanting to have that thing at all. The Science.org article for example is about the actual fact that steel production really does contribute seriously to climate change, but then much of the article is about the effort to make steel manufacturing more environmentally friendly. So the article is not about getting rid of steel manufacturing but about making it work better. Others in your list are not about getting rid of things, but moderation. To use the very last example, large scale car use really is creating a lot of problems. But one can recognize that and favor more moderation in terms of car use without getting rid of cars as a whole.

Narcc, why are you incapable of polite discussion with people you disagree with? Would it hurt you so much to some day, maybe try to do people the courtesy of responding to what they have with some detailed arguments or reasoning rather than insults?

The environmental issues are exaggerated. It is true that electricity prices are going up, https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/average-electricity-cost-increase-per-year but this is barely a blip above the current (very high) inflation rates https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-. The complaints about water usage are also not highly reasonable. The vast majority of water used for data centers get reused. Current data center water usage is about a 10th of the water usage for golf courses by the most extreme plausible estimates, and US golf courses account for a bit over 1% of all water usage, so being concerned about data centers here when a more useful thing would be to not have golf courses in the middle of Arizona would be a far more reasonable concern. https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2025/03/water-conservation-playbook-released-golf-industry.html. There are legitimate grid concerns; AI data centers don't just use a lot of power, but they use it in hard to predict ways, which makes load balancing the grid very difficult. So there are legitimate concerns.

But it seems like much of the left has adopted an anything involving LLM AIs is bad attitude in the US. This seems connected to the fact that the US attitude towards LLM AIs is more negative than pretty much almost every other country https://today.yougov.com/international/articles/53654-english-speaking-western-countries-more-negative-about-ai-than-western-europeans. But rather than having a serious discussion about the positives and negatives of this technology (and there are a lot in both columns), there's this tendency to just pick any possible negative and throw it on the wall. This is also particularly unfortunate right now in the US because there's major problems with the Trump administration rolling back all sorts of environmental regulations, including not just those for CO2 but for many other pollutants, and the administration is now actively stopping almost any new US wind and solar on a large scale. While there's been some legal pushback against some of that (see for example, this victory just today https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/climate/trump-offshore-wind-federal-judge.html ) this would be a far better use of these groups time and resources than going after a specific industry.

It may not be attracting to you but it is certainly popular. ChatGPT has about 800 million active users as of April https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/. Now, that's using data in part from OpenAI, but other metrics which are not from OpenAI paint a pretty similar picture. ChatGPT's website is one of the world's 10 most visited websites according to Similarweb and has been consistently that way for over a year now https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/ . Whatever problems ChatGPT has, lack popularity is not one of them.

What's really unfortunate here is that due to OpenAI's drastic exaggeration of what happened here it distracts from the real capabilities here. Being able to efficiently find sources in the literature is an incredibly useful tool. And even aside from that there are now multiple examples where professional mathematicians have used GPT-5 in the thinking mode to make progress on math problems. Nothing as major as any Erdos problem, but still clear use. Terry Tao for example used GPT-5 in thinking mode to help locate a counterexample to a conjecture here https://mathoverflow.net/questions/501066/is-the-least-common-multiple-sequence-textlcm1-2-dots-n-a-subset-of-t. Now, he could have almost certainly done this on his own, but it clearly saved time. Similarly, computer scientist Scott Aaronson used it to get a specific useful suggestion for a function with specific properties he needed that he was then able to use to do a specific thing https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9183. In neither of these cases was anything deeply groundbreaking done by the LLM. But the LLM clearly helped and likely saved many hours of work otherwise. And these systems continue to improve.

Star Trek is definitely not community. It is post-scarcity. The idea of some sort of "post-scarcity" society is itself pretty unlikely, but the broader ideas of a prosperous free society where advanced technology is used to help people, better ourselves and explore the universe is very different than one where drones and self-driving cars are being used by cops for unclear purposes.

This seems like this is going too far in the other direction. The news is often very negative but that's because we don't have headlines like "Last month, more solar power was installed than any other week in history, again for the 40th month in a row." Similarly, many diseases that were death sentences a few years ago have with the advance of modern drugs been turned into manageable illnesses. Cystic fibrosis for example used to kill early almost everyone who has it. Now we have drugs which make people with it likely to have lifespans close to normal. Similarly, HIV invariably lead to AIDS and a functional death sentence within a few years. Modern HIV treatments give people with HIV life expectancies better than a typical person in the 1950s. Lots of positive things are happening even as lots of negative thing are happening also.

I would much rather live in Star Trek than whatever cyberpunk dystopia we seem to be living in. Can the writers please change the genre a bit?