It's impossible to transmit information using entanglement.
Just to clear this up, parent meant it's not possible to communicate faster-than-light using entanglement.
It increases usage. Jevons Paradox
As a simple example, do you think bitcoin miners are going to pocket the savings, or expand operations to leverage the savings?
There might be a goldilocks zone, plus temperature differentials are a source of energy.
...and it'll result in downed drones and birds.
Some brands will cut corners to survive. Those that won't will be offered buyouts from new owners whose whole business plan is to acquire a brand that built a reputation, and liquidate that reputation by cutting corners and slapping the brand label on it.
All the good stuff is in the second bucket we'll pass later. We promise.
Doesn't the former imply the stories in the bible are truth, while the latter does not?
Your source says, "The book explains Tegmark’s categorization of multiverse scenarios in terms of “Level”, with Level I just lots of unobservable extensions of what we see, with the same physics, an uncontroversial notion." (emphasis mine).
Saying there is no evidence for level 3 (quantum) multiverse is right, but it is not right for parallel universes in the level 1 multiverse. Due to measured flatness of the universe, Tegmark asserted in Our Mathematical Universe that we have evidence there must be at least 100.
An interesting point. Is it possible that Microsoft's recent boasting about Edge security attracted hackers this year? Can the public discern relative browser security from Pwn2Own? Those NSA leaks had NSA opinions on various anti-virus programs... I wonder if there's anything in there about browsers.
The article might have a good point about being unable to run a classical computer and get quantum effects, I don't know, but if you DID try to simulate quantum effects with a classical computer, wouldn't you have to enforce limits that would manifest as our uncertainty principle and its derivatives like plank distance and time?
The article's second objection is the high difficulty with which the programmer would have to be able to anticipate and avoid a simulant discovering the simulation via errors in physics. Why? Any casual gamer knows you reload an old save after crap goes sideways. Also, so what if the zoo animals become conscious of their cage, happens all the time, makes them depressed and neurotic. Sentients discovering the simulation before interstellar flight would even answer the Fermi paradox.
The article's final objection is that "The programmer could of course just simulate the whole universe (or multiverse?) but that again doesn’t work for the simulation argument. Problem is, in this case it would have to be possible to encode a whole universe in part of another universe, and parts of the simulation would attempt to run their own simulation, and so on. This has the effect of attempting to reproduce the laws on shorter and shorter distance scales. That, too, isn’t compatible with what we know about the laws of nature." Why would the nested universe would have to reproduce the laws... wouldn't all possible laws get simulated? As another counterpoint, consider that geometrogenesis theorizes that spacetime is not fundamental... if true, the smaller distance argument is invalidated.
In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all.
You are wrong about there being no evidence for "the multiverse." There's actually more evidence for the existence of level 1 multiverses than there is for just our one being the only: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph...
"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.