I am struggling to come up with some way that this part makes any sense at all. It sounds like the kind of thing someone who is definitely not an expert the area would say. He is expressing the number of possible configurations of 1,000 qubits but that is only something you care about if you are simulating a quantum computer with a classical one. The whole point of quantum computers is that you don't have to do that.

Also a simple counterexample to this sentiment is given later on, when mentioning that Google already has a 72-qubit computer. Just storing the states of a 72-qubit machine would be substantially more than the entire capacity of the internet, implying that since we somehow did it then enumerating all the states is not necessary.

If you are only hiring whoever is best for the job then you are probably hiring a lot of foreign workers that will do it for way less money. Should the government allow that to happen or do you believe in hiring laws when they protect you?

Also, if you are running your company with only the end goal in mind then you are probably doing something illegal. Laws exist to protect the interests of society, not the interests of individual companies or people.

Not sure where you get the 10 number from. The largest US employer, the federal government, gives 13 days for 3 years or less of employment, 20 days after that and 26 days at 15 years.

But they are not paid during that time, it is unpaid vacation vs paid vacation that most people get.

Except that professional workers get 20-30 days of paid vacation time while teachers get none.

Also, if you work an engineering job you likely get at least 4 weeks paid vacation, possibly 6 or 8 weeks. Teachers can't take time off in the middle of the year, the summer break is their equivalent of vacation time.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that teachers have 3 months off in the summer. Most places go well into June (here the last day this year was the 19th) and teachers have to be back in the middle of August.

IANAL, but I am pretty sure that is not right. They are protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which allows websites to censor or filter their content and still be protected.

They are not common carriers. They are protected by section 230 of the CDA, a totally different thing that allows them to do any censoring or filtering that they want and still be protected.

No, it is a problem with mixed-messages which can have unencrypted HTML next to encrypted text. You can trick the client into decrypting a message you send to them and giving it back to you.

Nope, the problem is that an adversary can send you a carefully crafted email, which inside of it has an old encrypted email that they want to break into, and due to automatic decryption and rendering of HTML elements the plaintext of that encrypted email gets exfiltrated to a target server. The core issue is actually in the way MIME works with multi-part emails where you are allowed to have some unencrypted HTML and some encrypted segments together in the same email.

What are you trying to convey with this comment? I don't get how that has anything to do with what I said.

That is also not true. It is SUPER conditionally secure. That condition even has a name: the RSA assumption. I'm not sure at this point what you are even trying to argue.

No, no, no. A thousand times no. Information theoretic security means that no matter how much computational power you have you cannot break it, because you are fundamentally missing some information that is necessary to determine a unique solution. RSA is not that. No ciphers in use are that, except the OTP.

This TLS is a bad idea. Whoever thought about it assumes that there is a private key known only to the certificate authority. What if for some reason a third party finds this key or accesses it remotely? Suddenly, all communications, including the ones of the morons who came up with the idea, will be wide open to everybody.