Alcohol is more deadly than most drugs (smaller ratio between the effective dose and the lethal dose). Yet a little alcohol each week is safe and a part of life for many people. I think we can blame a seller for selling too much to an individual - note that it is illegal to sell a drink to an intoxicated person. But I don't think we can blame them for selling reasonably safe amounts.
The price has been rising steadily since August. I think by the time you read about it on Hacker News, the smart money has bought already, and the price of the ETF is as likely to go down as up from here.
i knew this comment would be made, we'll see what happens in a few months :) (Note: I haven't bought pall yet, it seems very volatile, if anyone is thinking about it, set your stop loss at minimum 5%)
Repeating it doesn't make it sound more plausible. If you have evidence, please take it to a journalist - this would be an explosive and worthwhile story! In a comments section, though, it's indistinguishable from mere slander against immigrants.
Thanks for the feedback. I feel bad that I offended people. I'm sorry; it wasn't my intention to imply all immigrants are problematic. It's only the state-sponsored immigrants, and they're only a tiny, tiny fraction.
I don't think most people care, honestly. Plus, as the parent poster said, this has been going on for 10 years. Not much can be done about it now.
But, if a journalist does happen to reads this and is interested, post your contact info. I'll reach out.
I signal turns with my arm when biking, especially left turns. Otherwise I would be slowing and moving unpredictably, which doesn't seem safe. Unfortunately this isn't common behavior in NYC - even cars often fail to signal their turns, let alone cyclists.
There's a clear public interest in preventing standing vehicles from blocking midtown traffic. My friends have dealt with this by sheer numbers: when one friend is moving, a dozen show up to do the quick transfer from sidewalk to truck. It's still against the rules, but fast enough that you would be unlikely to be ticketed.
Launching things from the Earth to the Sun is very difficult. We're talking a Saturn-V-sized rocket to move less than a lunar-lander-mass of waste. The fundamental problem is that the Earth moves fast in its orbit, and in order to drop your spaceship's orbit towards the Sun you have to slow down.
I agree with you, but with a couple of corrections. The cheaper algorithm called Density Functional Theory is probably the most popular kind of quantum calculation on molecules, and scales as ~N^2.5 in practice. On the other hand, the number of basis functions is a more than the number of valence electrons in the molecule (if the calculation is at all sane), much larger than the number of atoms. So the exponent is often smaller than you said, but the N is also much bigger. So in the end you're absolutely right about the need for quantum computing for molecules.
It's not quite as bad as an analog water simulator made of water. They have built a programmable machine that can run any quantum problem it can load into its qubits. The problem is, it has so few qubits that it can only load tiny problems. The claim is that it can still beat classical computers on some subset of these tiny problems.
Is it correct that the claim “that it can still best classical computers on some subset of these tiny problems” based on classical computers simulating quantum circuitry to compute those problems?
I’m wondering if there is some other way the problem could be computed without having to simulate qubits.
A lot of work has gone into looking for classical algorithms for these sampling problems since the mid-2000s, and we have found some speedups, but everything still suggests that they are truly exponential on classical hardware. The classical algorithms for these problems don't involve modeling qubits directly, but they do involve sampling exponentially many states and averaging over the results, which is a lot like modeling qubits.
For classical computers, one computer simulating another is only polynomially slower. The claim here is that any classical computer will be exponentially slower at simulating this problem. The experiment is just to show that the scaling is really polynomial vs exponential, and the uncertainty comes from the fact that we still can't fit very large N problems into current quantum computers. For small N, the two curves could look similar.
Quantum supremacy is about scaling (big-O notation) - taking a classically O(2^N) problem and making it polynomial. The empirical experiments are just to show that the scaling works, and the uncertainty comes from the fact that we still can't fit very large N problems into current quantum computers. Effectively, they don't have enough RAM to even load the problem (i.e. enough available quantum states).
