jaddood

Why not use formally-verified software?

You could also choose to use formally verified software for sensitive research.

As mentioned, it should be pronounced "rung," but in any case, removing the i and suddenly making it a word and pronouncing it in a very unexpected way is really pretty stupid. I think, if one's really insisting on using "ring" but without the i, at least call it "rung" not "rng" so that its pronounciation is clear.

If it's so important to have a "rng" instead of a "ring" then using its name in some example of its usage should probably be better.

I wonder if there's any possibility of genetically engineering the fungi and using them to extract more energy from contaminated areas and nuclear waste as a form of biofuel. That would be quite an interesting way to use nuclear waste.

Sewage contains other volatile products that would evaporate and condense along with water. Cleaning sewage water for use in drinking is probably much, much harder than doing it with just sea water.

Did you just forget Esperanto?

This is a very good idea, and could be used by Google or other advertisement agencies (if only they want to.) You may pay the revenue the ads make and get the stuff you want to learn instead. This way, Google gets its money, and you get to learn. Also, this could be uesful in that it doesn't require too much tracking of the users. It is definitely not fully sustainable, but it could be better than nothing.

A more reasonable thing to do is to form a council of computer scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, politicians, and people otherwise capable of having a useful opinion in the matter.

That council would then have the task of reviewing new technologies and their potential impacts. The council may then have different subgroups each discussing a certain technology, or possibly each with a certain specific task such as: reviewing research papers, watching the developments inside companies, writing legal propositions, etc...

This council could then be under a government agency, or better yet, an NGO that can get funding by the government, from donations, universities, etc...

What would you think about that?

From the paper,

> The only difference between Theorem 1 and its quantum equivalent in [13] is that the quantum algorithm has no ε approximation factors (so ε=0 and 1/ε does not appear in the runtime). Thus, we can say that our algorithm performs just as well, up to polynomial slowdown and ε approximation factors.

With ε being the accepted margin of error, theorem 1 being the algorithm produced by Tang, and [13] being a reference to Kerenidis and Prakash's quantum algorithm kept here in the quote for fidelity of quoting.

This means that this algorithm is not really a substitue for the quantum algorithm because it will require a level of error to be accepted (something which might work in recommendation engines, but not necessarily outside that context) and it still has polynomial slowdown over the quantum algorithm. One thing to note is that not all quantum algorithms will perform exponenttially better than their classical counterparts. Particularily, some quantum search algorithms perform only quadratically better than the classical search algorithms. This means that even if an exponential speedup was not achieved by quantum computers, (which it still is because of the ε factor meaning they don't give the same results) it is expected that they still achieve polynomial speedup as they do in this case.

In conclusion, stating that this algorithm threatens the prospects of quantum computation is probably an exageration.

Hello!

Could you give an overview of the proceedings of your job as a researcher in quantum computing?

For instance, how do you start your day job, what do you do during the day (how exactly do you do research,) how do you end your day, etc...

Be crazy. Do crazy things like Elon Musk does. Everything remembered was not ordinary.

What???? Who told you that? What kind of proof do you have? It seems to me that it's just some meaningless sentence just to make empathy with dystopian views of the world, but without any real reflection in the real world.