Comment Re:Do not trust "quantum safe" encryption (Score 1) 35
Good points. I'm no expert in the field, but I've taken master's level courses in the relevant math and physics. I particularly remember my math professor saying that no encryption has been mathematically proven safe. We only know the current schemes are safe insofar as nobody has published an attack yet.
We do know how to break certain classical encryption schemes with hypothetical quantum computers. This clearly doesn't mean other schemes will stay quantum-unbreakable forever, because people keep inventing new algorithms. So "quantum safe" only applies in a very limited sense, until the day they are broken.
Comment Re: interesting way of shifting framework (Score 1) 37
Comment Re:400MW what? (Score 1) 89
Is thet number thermal output or Electric? I'm no expert put afaik it's a rather significant difference
Net electric, it's in the fscking summary:
Overall, the present design of ARC is expected to produce about 1.13 GW of fusion power, with 500 MW of that extracted as electricity. Some of that (100 MW) will be needed to power the plant's operations, leaving 400 MW to be sent to the grid.
Comment Re:Get the name right. (Score 1) 18
Comment Re:Poison the Well (Score 1) 58
2 + 2 = 5...for extremely large values of 2!
That's nothing! I can easily prove that 3 + 3 = 3!
Comment Re:Obligatory XKCD (Score 2) 166
Comment Re:Wait, 4 words? (Score 1) 171
Which four words are we supposed to remember?
"I love this company" or "Developers, developers, developers, developers". https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Comment Re:Oh fuck off... (Score 1) 197
I want to eat human flesh, particularly humans whose names start with "dev" and end with "slash0". Do you have a problem with that? Because ain't nobody going to tell me what I should and should not eat.
In other words, I'm sick and tired of people who think their choice of food is only about their personal rights. The food always comes from somewhere. Most people don't go around robbing grocery stores just because they think they have a divine right to eat what they want.
Comment Mixing chemicals to speed up reactions (Score 1) 14
Comment Re:Code review is not what AI is being sold as (Score 2) 41
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.
Comment Re:The Horse is Already Gone (Score 1) 68
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.
Comment Re: Mac OS has already started to pester me (Score 1) 68
"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.