Your comment is kind of naive. Starlink (and the military's branded Starshield) is game changing in the defense sector. There is a reason that China is racing to replicate SpaceX's re-usable rocket strategy. There is a reason Amazon is building their own mega-constellation and three different Chinese companies are planning their own mega-constellations. SpaceX opened a can of worms and now both Russia and China have realized they are likely a decade behind on the action.

See, wherever you can get a high quality data connection, you can remove a pilot from out of a cockpit. If you can take a pilot out of a cockpit, then you have all of the advantages of Kamikaze tactics without any of the draw backs. Russia is seeing how lethal that combination is first hand. They lost the battle for the Black Sea because Ukraine developed Kamikaze speed boats. Their oil refineries are blowing up left and right because Ukraine has developed long range and highly accurate Kamikaze drones.

Robots with mounted machine guns are showing up on the front lines replacing humans, but they still have the lethal intelligence of a human gunner. Conceptually, you can operate unmanned submersibles without the need for kitchens or beds or toilets or plumbing or oxygen. It also isn't hard to imagine sniper teams being replaced by robots.

It's not just Kamikaze tactics. ISR drones are delivering real-time target data and they can now do so reliably and relatively cheaply from anywhere on Earth thanks to Starlink. Every other weapon system directly benefits from better ISR because ISR is a force multiplier. You can't shoot something you can't see.

Now technically, you could do all of the above with really good AI - but Starlink allows us to use good old fashioned intelligence from anywhere on the planet with latency measured in hundreds of milliseconds without the cost or risks or complexity of AI.

Of course Russia wants a way to counter this capability. The funny thing is every military on the planet already knows how... you just have to be willing to detonate nuclear weapons in space and the entire glass house will shatter in an instant.

Spoken like a true Philadelphian

... is getting out of hand.

... then its biggest bang-for-the-buck application will be fpv drones.

Why is the idea that "gamifying war" is bad? What consitutes a game? If the answer is simply competition and strategy, then war is already a game and always has been. If a game has a requirement of something you do for pleasure, enjoyment, or recreation - well nobody is playing this game because it's fun. Now I'm sure some aspects are more fun than others, but you would be hard pressed to find a soldier on the front lines that doesn't want the war to stop because they are simply having too much fun. No, this points based approach is about applying 'game theory' and encouraging efficient use of resources to maximize impact. It's not to make it more fun - it's to make it more logistically sustainable.

I seem to recall that Bubblesort is faster than Quicksort in at least one situation. If you are inserting a single item into an array of sorted data, you can make it just a little bit faster if you do a bubblesort rather than a Quicksort. Now, have I ever needed that bit of knowledge? I can't say that I have.... but the concept is useful. Even really bad algorithms can be better than really good algorithms if you apply it in the right situation. But I didn't need to go to school for as long as I did to understand that concept.

where are we going to put all of that angular momentum?

I can do the same thing with a web cam and a wall of lava lamps.

It also might be the straw that breaks the camel's back - I think Utah is becoming less red and more purple every year because of these stupid laws.

The only reason people even kind of trust Wikipedia is the religious use of citations. AI powered chat bots should use something similar.

According to LastPass, they salt the master password with the username before applying a 1-way hash using 100,100 rounds of PBKDF2-SHA256. This slows down anyone hoping to decrypt the password and almost guarantees no two vaults will have the same 256 bit decryption key. LastPass should have addressed the human error of (re)using weak or leaked passwords. 1Passwords use of a secret key does a lot to solve this problem.

One thing most people don't realize is that the master password is run through a hashing chain that's intended to be long and computationally expensive for anyone taking guesses at a password. This hash chain is what converts a human readable password to a 256 bit encryption key (albeit one with low entropy). If LastPass was smart enough to salt the master password before hashing it, attackers would likely have no success on trying the se master password on all vaults.

I just realized I never clarified the title of my previous comment. We should already be dead because the most dangerous secrets that should NEVER have been released, you can read about on Wikipedia. I'm referring to nuclear weapons where the Soviet Union was able to steal enough information about the Manhattan project that they were only a few years behind in developing their own nukes and quickly became very good at it. If you want to talk about security of information causing the apocalypse, you are about 80 years late. That cat is out of the bag and it may yet be the "apocalypse" of which you speak.

Secret information USUALLY depreciates in value pretty rapidly. Technological advancement is a moving target, so if you don't get that information for 5 years, you are still 5 years behind. The biggest weakness to quantum computers is our dependence on asymmetric encryption (like RSA and ECC) and how hard they are to develop and prove that they are, if not unbreakable, at least extremely hard to break for the forseable future. Currently, the most common symmetric algorithms do not appear to be vulnerabile to quantum algorithms (at least not vulnerable enough that it couldn't be mitigated by doubling the key length which is relatively easy). There is a LOT of work going on behind the scenes to replace the aging RSA and the newer, but still vulnerable, ECC algorithms to harden against quantum computing. Even if there is a period of vulnerability, personal quantum computers (PQCs) are still a very long way off. It's not safe to bet against technological advances in the computing space, but I dare say that is at least 25 years down the road. Your biggest concern will be state actors and rogue professionals abusing their access to quantum computers (like IT professionals installing cryptocurrency miners on systems they have access to). The Microsoft Support scammers in India won't be using quantum computers to steal your credit card information for a very long time.

Why? For the same reason I shouldn't have to learn how to read or write legal code in high school. Computer Science is a specialized skill that most minds aren't good at. On the other hand, keeping computer literacy courses up-to-date with the fast changing times will be a continuing challenge. Basic security concepts, recognizing scams, avoiding risk, and good credential management (passwords need to die) are very important skills to have living in an online world. A true Computer Science requirement would be an unappreciated and pointless burden to most students.