madez

> Upshot: You use quantum mechanics to decide a classical potential for you (e.g. you chose the classical potential that factors into pairs such that each pair energy is 'closest' in the Hilbert space metric to the quantum rest) - Downside: You're missing the variance.

Couldn't the quantum mechanical state become multimodal such that the classical approximation picks a state that is far away from the physical reality?

And, couldn't this multimodality excaberate during the actual physical process and possibly arrive at a number of probable outcomes which are never predicted by the simulation? Is there more than hope that that doesn't happen?

This explanation is interesting. Thanks for sharing it. While reading it, I got the impression that the simulation is not fully quantum mechanical, but rather classical with select quantum mechanical effects.

Which parts of quantum mechanics are idealised away and how do we know that not including them won't significantly reduce the quality of the result?

Are you possibly using stochastical noise in the simulations and repeat them multiple times, in the hope that whatever disturbance caused by the idealisation of the model is covered by the noise?

I'm saying that copyright is unjust. It violates fundamental individual freedoms of people like freedom of expression to achieve goals that do not justify that mean, and is therefore illegitimate.

The comparison to laws that protect people is invalid because copyright does not protect people. It grants governmentally enforced monopolies. Copyright has a legitimate goal. There is a value in certain activities for society and copyright is a governments intervention to increase that activity.

There are other things that are considered so important that the government takes action to provide them, like for example social security, health services and infrastructure. That is realized by taxation. I'm suggesting that the state should use taxation to ensure the activity of those who rely now on copyright so the restrictions of individual fundamental freedoms is gone.

Note that copyright has become even more restrictive with time. There are situations where people are forbidden from singing a song on a birthday party in public. This is an example of where the unjust restriction of individual freedoms becomes apparent.

And I'm saying that this injustice in some situations is so grave, that we should show civil disobedience and try to break and mock copyright when possible as a form of protest.

Copyright does not deserve voluntary submission anyways. It is an unjust and ever stricter becoming legal framework to give life support to an industry that is unwilling to adjust to new technological realities.

RetroShare was removed from Debian in the past. Anybody any clues why?

It is not stealing. It may be illegal, but it isn't stealing nor robbery. You may be violating the copyright law, but nobody is taken away any object and there is no threat of violence. When people get access to copyrighted works, then at first, it is good for people. Only then the idea is that the creators can't make a living by producing those works. We can solve that differently, without using copyright. Copyright is a weirdly anti-market and authoritarian concept where the government artificially makes something scarce by punishing supply. In any case, distributing stuff is not stealing. /rant

"I'm just doing my job!"

The deflection of personal responsibility for damaging behaviour as part of a job is a cultural problem.

Who knew? Electing badly can have bad outcomes.

The company CureVac only denied rumours that it will be bought, it did nor deny claims that the Trump administration approached them and tried to buy exclusive access to the vaccine.

The reporting is matched by many very reputable broadcasters and confirmed by government officials on record.