2 + 2 = 5...for extremely large values of 2!
That's nothing! I can easily prove that 3 + 3 = 3!
Which four words are we supposed to remember?
"I love this company" or "Developers, developers, developers, developers". https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
It's just that the entire YouTube is appallingly bad.
A lot of the audio production in individual videos is really bad. This isn't anything to do with YouTube per se, not their compression algorithms or other features. A lot of YouTubers have absolutely no concept of microphone placement, of using audio compression, of reducing background noise. All of which are things which will drastically affect audio quality and the ability of a speech-to-text model to create subtitles.
It would be nice if YouTube would normalize all the uploaded videos to one set standard. Note I'm not suggesting that they compress the videos as that might change the intended presentation of professional audio productions. I just mean peak-finding normalization which could be implemented losslessly and without breaking existing video links.
Having said that, when I look at my own channel - and I am not claiming to have great audio; I have a host which would destroy a lavalier microphone in mere seconds. YouTube's subtitling is really good. It automatically switches between English and French and Hebrew, and even with a fair bit of background noise (welding, grinding, cooking, crowd noise, music) it generally gets the text correct. So I don't know what the original complaint is, except that it's not perfect. Well, guess what, neither is human hearing. How about that famous Jimi Hendrix line, "Excuse me while I kiss this guy."
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?
"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him." -Arthur C. Clarke