Pazzaz

Literally nothing changes. This is the continuation of a temporary law that already existed.

It's not accessed on devices. This is about people using messaging applications, like Messenger. Then, as the message isn't encrypted, Meta can read the message on their servers. And with this law they are allowed to scan and sometimes report it to the government.

The citizens do have a say: they vote in elections. This is a temporary law that was implemented 5 years ago so everyone had a chance to vote in the 2024 EU election and vote out those who supported this law. But most people don't care if a company like Meta is allowed to scan their messages. For those who care, they can always use an encrypted messaging service like Signal or Telegram.

They don't need to use "illegal chat apps". They can just use Signal or Telegram, or any of the other ways that exist to send encrypted messages.

You don't need to do any work to circumvent this. This law is just continuing the status queue that's existed in the EU for 5 years.

To avoid being affected by this law, you can just download Signal, or use any other encrypted messaging service.

No, there is no law preventing anyone from encrypting their messages. The thought is that children won't use encrypted services.

> read: one person elected

No, they have 8 people elected: 3 in the region, 5 in the municipality.

They got 4,46 % of the votes in the region, and 7,92 % in the municipality. And who knows, maybe they'll use that 5 million SEK to get more seats in this years election.

> What's that? You say you want even more infuriating font stories? Well don't you worry, I'll be back soon with another diatribe about font thickness and antialiasing on the web on Mac vs. Windows.

Did he ever write about this? I can't see anything about it in his list of articles.

No one is "already using Shor's algorithm". Wikipedia lists the largest numbers factored using Shor's algorithm on a real quantum computer as follows:

- The number 15 (5*3) was factored in 2001

- The number 21 (7*3) was factored in 2012

- An attempt to factor 35 (5*7) was made in 2019 but they didn't succeed because of accumulation of errors in the quantum computer.

Quantum computers today are very bad, so changing the algorithm probably won't change much.

The proof is not rejected because people don't understand it, it's rejected because people don't think the proof is correct.

If the proof was translated to Lean, then it would mean a lot if it managed to prove the ABC conjecture because it would mean the proof was correct. It doesn't matter if the proof used crazy definitions. The statement of the ABC conjecture would still be understandable and so the ABC conjecture would be solved.

Also mentioned in the original post.

The source paper says:

> During an experiment to produce gynogenic Russian sturgeon progeny, a negative control was initiated using non-irradiated American paddlefish sperm and eggs from the Russian sturgeon. Unexpectedly, the control cross resulted in viable hybrids.

I'm not a biologist, but I guess it's the "gynogenic" part that's hard to do?

I think you're exaggerating a little when you say "site:youtube.com" doesn't work. If I search 'site:youtube.com apple watch' I get 143 000 000 results, and if I search something more specific like 'site:youtube.com "Featuring Dr James Grime"' I'll find exactly what I'm looking for. But you're correct that it doesn't seem to search video comments, only titles and descriptions.