Let's see.
One of them relies heavily on raw parallel compute power.
The other...relies heavily on raw parallel compute power.

While those chips may have been originally designed for 3D gaming computation, the nice thing about CUDA is that it is generic enough and you can easily leverage that compute power in other applications as well.

The not-so-nice reality about CUDA is that NVidia deliberately does not offer downward compatibility with old CUDA versions in their next GPU generations, so you have to regularly re-engineer your CUDA applications for the new NVidia cards. Or stick with the old cards. I confess to hoarding the Super version of a specific RTX card because I can't be bothered to re-engineer some of my AI apps every two years to keep up with the current CUDA specs.

But AMD is a non-starter in this context. (They may still be good for gaming.)

Only true if you restrict your definition of "music" to a very limited (and dumbed down) subset.

Humans find pleasing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No complexity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

(I believe you could still make an argument that you find example #1 very pleasing and example #2 not complex at all...that's your prerogative.)

That is one way to go about it.

I have some experience in a slightly different solution that makes spotting scam emails fun by gamifying it. Spot a phishing email and score points. Spot it faster than anyone else and score even more points. There is a company-wide scoreboard, and the monthly best performers can be rewarded but IME that is not even necessary. The competition in itself is reward enough when there are many who want to be the top dog on the scoreboard.

The best part? Practically all who take part in the game, not just the top scorers, become very expert at spotting real scams. They seldom need my help.

Punishment is not the only way to that goal. You can also make it fun.

Sadly, you are not most people.

Speaking as someone whose duties have included helping people who have fallen for various scams, I can tell you there is no big difference between age groups. Or if there is, younger people tend to be more trusting and less cynical than older people, making them actually more gullible for certain types of scams. (Barring of course greedy older people who will grab at anything that promises instant riches.) The average person that has needed my help has been in their thirties, not exactly a boomer.

And that is based on people who have fallen for scams and lost money, company credentials or something else.

This.

Spammers have been doing this for, what, at least 25 years now? Because that is how long I've been teaching people to never click any links or unsubscribe buttons in spam messages. Those "unsubscribe" clicks are of course especially valuable to spammers - they not only confirm that your email address is valid and active but that you also actually read the spam you receive. Would you expect them to honor your "unsubscribe" request? The more fool you.
Other sneaky methods regularly used to identify active spam receivers have included invisible 1x1 pixel image links, unique per message. When you open the spam email, your client tries to load the image from the spammer's server and fails - but the spammer gets a log message indicating that you tried to access the image, correlates it with the message sent, and knows now for sure that you are reading their spam. Expect more in the future.

But this is really old news. Blast from the past. TFA writers invented a time machine and didn't bother to tell that?

Also, in the past, hardware solutions for producing true random numbers have included...yes, you guessed it, photon-based quantum randomness. ID Quantique, for example, has been commercially offering photon-based hardware random number generators for over 10 years already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So TFA is basically yesterday's news and marketing. Move on, nothing to see here.

Sorry, but the math here doesn't add up. You mean that Putin won his current presidency with 0.01% of the votes given? What an utterly bizarre voting system.

If you vote for Putin, you support his policies and therefore accept & deserve what you get.

And of course, if the above is still too trivial for you, don't worry.
Today, the sky is the limit on how ridiculously large Rubik's cubes you can get:

https://mastercubestore.com/yj...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Definitely the one for math professors with too much time on their hands!

The starting setup should be randomized sufficiently. Otherwise, you could simply skip the analysis part in your algorithm - you could simply precalculate the optimum path solution to a known problem. Having to figure out the correct (or the best) solution is an important part of the challenge.

Of course, it is important that the randomization is done by rotation. If you remove the pieces and reassemble the cube in a random configuration, the chances are you are out of luck. Only a very small subset of possible reassembled configurations can be solved by rotation alone. (Try that as a party gag for someone who boasts their Rubik's skills!)

But once 4x4 cubes are child's play for you, try your teeth on one of these little cuties:
https://www.amazon.com/Shengsh...

So I take it you haven't tried Perplexity?

It not only gives you an LLM answer but also links its sources so you can check them out. Personally, I have found it quite useful. In fact, tons more useful than anything Google, for any serious (work-related) stuff. You can formulate a very complex query and even refine it, if it didn't quite get you the first time, plus validate if it got the answer right. With Google, no matter how well formulated your query is, it will spam you with a dozen loosely related (but not what I asked) SEO ads and then pages full of results that are somehow related to what you asked but do not solve the exact problem you had.

So yes, I would say Perplexity has cut down my Google use by 90%-99%, and I really can't see myself going back (unless Perplexity get enshitified somehow).

While that may seem ideologically sound, technically - in a two-party system - when you vote for Mickey Mouse, you are effectively voting for the guy who wins the vote. Because you did not vote for whoever came second, your invalid vote ends up paving the road to victory for the other guy.

When you know that one of two candidates will be elected and you think both are terrible, it is always better to vote for the one you think would be less terrible than not vote at all or vote for Mickey Mouse. Otherwise you are just making it easier for the really terrible candidate to win.

In this case, Donald Trump would like to thank you for your Mickey Mouse vote.

Funny, to me the above describes CUDA quite accurately.
Speaking as someone who has to re-engineer CUDA based AI scripts for every Nvidia card generation just because they cut the support for older CUDA. And there are some that aren't just worth the effort and gray hairs required to make them work...so that Nvidia will just trash them in a year or two in its newest CUDA.

I would love it if what you wrote about CUDA were true. But in the real world, CUDA is not downwards compatible. When a new CUDA version arrives, you will have to migrate and re-engineer your codebase.

This.

60 day password rotation is not a solution. It only gives the bad actor a slightly shorter timeframe to perform their unsavory deeds. Meanwhile, it also encourages the users to use easier and guessable passwords, otherwise they'll forget their own passwords.

For something that actually works, try MFA, geolocation and device certificates instead. Preferably all three, but if you can pick only one, take the last one. Allowing known devices only based on device certificates is a killer.

Or how about this?

public class ProcessApplication {

        public static void main(String[] args) {

                System.out.println("Application denied.");
        }
}

Simple and efficient. Now you can fire all those DOGE Java developers, in the name of government efficiency!

Exactly.

IDQ for example has been offering photon-based quantum cryptography devices commercially for...a little over 20 years now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So TFA boils down to nothing but marketing BS. "Look, this is a breakthrough since it is the first time WE did it!"