The principle problem with humans is that they're completely unreliable, due to basic design.
They seem particularly unreliable when asked to tell the difference between a headmaster and a fundamental rule.
QCs are completely unsuitable for reversing hashes and that is what cracking passwords needs.
Translation: we don't currently have a quantum algorithm for reversing hashes. But there was a time, not that long ago, when we didn't have a quantum algo for factorization either. However, I don't expect to see a quantum algo for hash reversion any time soon, because the whole problem of reversing hashes is pretty complex.
Factorization as a classical problem is essentially trivial, in that there are very simple classical algorithms for it. They just take a lot of time to run. But coming up with an efficient quantum algorithm was not trivial, and the algorithm itself isn't so simple. So you can estimate that a quantum version of any algorithm is a lot more complex than the classical counterpart.
"quantum resistant forever" is too strong.
I've only taken fairly general master's level courses in quantum information and regular cryptography, but I agree with this overall sentiment. My math professors used to say that no asymmetric encryption scheme has been proved unbreakable; we only know if they haven't been broken so far. Assuming something is unbreakable is like saying Fermat's last theorem is unprovable — until one day it's proved. So to me "post quantum cryptography" is essentially a buzzword.
Planes are powered by kerosene.
Balloons are powered by hot air. What better way to generate it than a room full of AI-enhanced suits?
You can stare at the full moon all night if you like, because the albedo of the moon has filtered most of the light including the UV band that naturally passes through our own atmosphere. The three mile circle illuminated by a mirror would bounce a significantly higher amount of UV than the moon's albedo. If you treat the 60ft reflector as an analog to a pinhole in a pinhole camera, the circular area on the Earth surface would be a rough projection of the image of the sun.
(1) I wonder how they calculate the UV exposure for the observer on the surface within the illumination area.
(2) I wonder if you'd be able to detect places in a coherent projection where sunspots or coronal ejections are reflected through the "pinhole" effect of this arrangement.
As opposed to depending on lithium produced in China.
What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what the carbon emissions of fossil fuel extraction and refining are? Do you think the sludge that comes out of the ground goes right into a gas tank?
Also, why are people comparing the ingredients of a battery — which is recharged a thousand times — against petrol, which you need to extract and process anew for every fscking "charge". I keep seeing this over and over, and I'm never sure if it's a new level of stupid, or just a very hairy troll under a very large bridge.
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I also notice that the Hormuz Strait is being closed. Gas guzzler owners all over the world are whining over rising oil prices, while the civilized world is moving into energy sources that don't depend on access to conflict areas. The grandparent whines about China, but it's not exactly the sole source of Lithium. They even opened a mine here in Finland.
I think you mean "Microsoft-Sanctioned Azure Copilot Slop Content Generated At Consumer Expense From Pirated Source Material Office 365 Home Edition Premium Plus."
3.11 for workgroups
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval