Comment Re:Et tu, Woz? (Score 1) 75
Comment Re: good self awareness (Score 1) 62
Why MCA?
Saving money on ROM
Will not help you for long...
Comment Re: Oh goody (Score 0) 118
Free speech includes lying.
Comment Employment is voluntary and based on value (Score 0) 81
Merit should always consider strictly value.
Comment Re:Sunlight on the dark side (Score 1) 79
I'll be charitable, and assume you know the difference between a dark surface and a surface that happens to be in the dark.
I have a physics degree and I was aiming for a +1, Funny. I guess since we're joking about global warming, it counts as "dark" humour.
Comment Re:Sunlight on the dark side (Score 4, Funny) 79
Comment Re: Why do we care? (Score 0) 176
The $5K a year just gives you a $300 per person per visit discount. So pays itself back in 15 visits or so.
Comment Re:Why do we care? (Score 0) 176
Plenty of us nerds can afford this and want to see news about this.
Comment Re:I'm considering switching more (Score 1) 86
Ubuntu, however, is awful.
There are literally hundreds of Linux distros out there.
Comment Re:Learning another language is fun, too. (Score 1) 100
Comment Re:Ok cool (Score 1) 104
Machine learning/AI models to help with this are quite common in this field, and have been around for decades to help with spectral library lookups - long before the current LLM hype phase.
Yep, I once worked with NIR spectrometry in the paper industry around 2000. The company developed a kind of robot that measured various qualities of pulp and paper in realtime at paper mills. I was more on the hardware side, and I was kind of annoyed when they wanted to switch to spectroscopy for everything and ditch our nice old mechanical robots, parts of which I'd developed earlier. But at the same time I was excited about the ML and pattern recognition bits.
Comment Re:Today's AI is just Automation! (Score 1) 104
Comment Re:Q-C! What is it good for? (Score 1) 59
Comment Re:No commercial applications (Score 1) 59
Are you suggesting that Shor's and Grover's are the only possible quantum algorithms? I'm not holding my breath for commercial QC either, but I don't like being overly pessimistic or conservative either. Quantum computers now are a bit like the early electronic computers of the 1940s — proofs of a concept but not exactly commercial success stories. Sure, with those computers people could do the same old calculations much faster, but the really interesting and useful applications involved a bit more vision, and those didn't appear overnight.
While many people associate QC with breaking cryptography, in the end it's just a faster way to do classical math. There's a whole world of pure quantum problems that are more naturally solved with quantum computers; this is what Feynman meant when he conceived the idea of QC in the early 1980s. So instead of getting hung up on the number of qubits, consider for example what D-Wave is doing.