Comment Free at last (Score 1) 210
Pat kept is religiosity in a bag for his time as ceo. He let it slip a few times before he was ceo, particularly when he was running the labs. Now he's out he can let his freak flag fly.
Pat kept is religiosity in a bag for his time as ceo. He let it slip a few times before he was ceo, particularly when he was running the labs. Now he's out he can let his freak flag fly.
The result I'm interested in is whether it is possible or not. We don't have an answer either way.
If the noise always grows or the energy to create low entropy matter or something else conspires to prevent it being possible then that it good for stored data.
If QEC can work in a scalable way and BER can be reduced such that the ECC beats the BER, then you have a problem for stored data.
Being crypto minded, my personal opsec led me to keep anything secret that went into a cloud or transited across the internet have a symmetric key that travelled by quantum secure methods. I helped that I travel a lot. DH or RSA is not quantum secure. A key file in your pocket is.
Sadly the paper is behind a $30 paywall.
I believe this is the pre print https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.136...
Thank you.
Sadly the paper is behind a $30 paywall.
I read the abstract. The claim seems weak - "beyond break even" I.E. they do better than not having error correction. Well I should coco, but is it enough? 63us decoder time for a 1.1 us cycle. So how does that work? 1.1us then you spend 63us waiting for the error correction before doing the next cycle? They've upped it from a distance 5 to distance 7 code - a distance 7 code can correct 3 bits in (if I read it right) 101 qbits comprising the logical qbit. That's not enough.
Perhaps a real quantum computer academic can tell me where I'm misreading it? I'm just a humble cryptography implementor trying to work out if I should be worried.
"IBM, Google's main rival, questioned the scalability of Google's "surface code" error correction approach"
I believe I questioned the scalability, right here on slashdot, on the discussion around the original surface code paper. The numbers were in the paper showing the error correction could not scale to a lid on BER as the number of qubits and iterations increase.
The text of TFS is underwhelming. "Dropped by half". So you had 10 errors, now you have 5. Your algorithm still doesn't work.
I haven't read the paper yet - I guess I've got to go and do that now just so I can see why it won't work.
If you have to explain the whoosh, it's not funny any more.
The space probe that collected the sample wasn't so carefully cleansed. So the sample may have been contaminated in space, from the probe and the little buggers woke up once they got to the comfy lab back on earth. The final sentence of TFS says this indirectly.
It sounds like a hard engineering problem. I'd love to work on that.
To get decent scenery you've always had to be online all the time. I didn't even know it could be played offline before with 2020.
MS Flight sim started as a non MS flight sim on the Apple 2. A Sopwith Camel flying over a flat terrain with line art 3D. MS brought it ported it to the PC, and incrementally improved the graphics, planes and terrain over the years. Since it started in the 1970s, the online period of MS Flight sim is rather short compared to the offline-only period.
On steam, it is currently rated at "Overwhelmingly Negative". This is because you are forced to be online to play it and it takes an eternity to download the game.
All the features mentioned are things you can already do with an android tablet running a home assistant client. Put it in a nice frame on the wall with a hidden power supply and bingo you have something you can control all you house things on.
Bonus, it's all open source and you can add your own things if you know a bit of coding.
Yes. The 2 was missing.
979-8868801242
Yes. I was there a few months ago. The coffee was excellent, which is my primary priority.
Yeah I know you're beowulfing a cluster of Natalie hot grits at this point but...
This could be a test case to improve the optimizations of gcc/LLVM
(1) Craft hand-written assembly
(2) Assemble.
(3) Decompile into high level language
(4) Compile
(5) Compare results of (2) and (4)
(6) Repeat
(7)
(8) Profit???
This is the point where you find there is an instruction that does what you are trying to do and your hand crafted assembly was dumb.
I've added a couple of instructions to X86, so for those two instructions, I don't make that mistake. All the others are fair game.
The Huldufólk count as negative people
But Húsavík has a Eurovision museum. So it wins. I'd live there.
Who could have predicted it? It's almost like the thing that every cryptography professional told them from the outset would happen, happened!
Yep. I was there in the standards meeting when the feds turned up and gave a talk about the mandatory LA features we had to add. We all pointed out how this was stupid and would be exploited by everyone and anyone to spy on everyone and anyone including those feds demanding we add LA.
And here we are 20 years later.
Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.