There isn't actually 4, but that 4th one you perceive...Notice ex. search doesn't do this, it's a stubborn Android engineering politics thing.
I can't even begin to explain how this happened, but, tl;dr: that 4th color was a huge problem to everyone involved. But, once it became a Big Thing, engineer middle managers...sigh. Not worth trying to explain. The amount of chicanery was really astonishing, odds are I'll never work at a BigCo again.
Now, they're stuck with it, even though VPs were insisting it to be fixed since day -100.
To all of your points , it sure looks like he's imitating the same logic to get that off-white...but then isn't using the important part: gotta use my/Google's color space.
That's the magic to get contrast without even having to see the colors or measure ratios or any of that BS. (tl;dr: HCT color space, it's CAM16 strapped to Lab* L, and then you can describe contrasting colors by a delta in tone / L)
This computation is... handwaves, most handwaving I've done in a while...initializing a random state, and it's well-understood whether this state was randomly initialized isn't computable in a reasonable timeframe on classical computers. ends extreme handwaving
This nerd sniped a bunch of us, because it sounds like "oh we proved P!=NP", the keys to understanding are A) hanging onto the this in "this computation" (this is easier when you're familiar with the computation and it's contextual history in the field) B) remembering prime factors as a plausible application of QC.
Then faced with the contradiction of B, it's neatly resolved by "yes, but the quantum computer isn't big enough to do prime factorization yet"
As noted somewhat sideways in the blog, if someone has a computation that is A) not classically computable in a reasonable timeframe B) is computable on a miniscule quantum computer C) can be verified on a classic computer in a reasonable timeframe, a lot of researchers will be excited.
Does this mean that the problem of not being able to verify QC results will go away in the scenario where we have a large enough QC to solve an NP problem?
> Anyone can write about quantum computers as if they are remotely qualified
He's the quantum guy. [^2]
You're applying classical computing intuitions (where verification is indeed usually much faster than computation) to quantum computing, where this relationship doesn't necessarily hold. The fact that verification can be as hard as computation in quantum computing is actually a major challenge that Aaronson has written about extensively.
n.b. I've been here 15 years but sometimes have to take a step back and adjust my approach, because I can use this as a quick break to let out frustration with something else. When I do, I find the HN guidelines helpful, almost a joy. [^1] They're written conversationally and are more meditations than rules.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. [...] Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
"Other threads in these comments talk about some rick and morty multiverse type of thing, just stay on the sidelines guys"
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
"Anybody can write about quantum computers as if they are remotely qualified"
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
From Aaronson's actual post:
"...for the exact same reason why this quantum computation would take ~10^25 years for a classical computer to simulate, it would also take ~10^25 years for a classical computer to directly verify the quantum computer's results!!"
He goes on: "...this is why I've been obsessing for years about the need to design efficiently verifiable near-term quantum supremacy experiments."
• Won multiple Best Student Paper Awards:
- Danny Lewin Best Paper at [STOC](https://www.sigact.org/prizes/student.html) for quantum computing proofs in local search (2004)
- Best Paper at [Complexity Conference](https://computationalcomplexity.org/conferences.php) for quantum advice limitations (2004)
- Best Paper at Complexity Conference for quantum certificate complexity (2003)
I can see that there could be an argument for the edge cases where p=np is true could precisely be this new type of computing.
Re: MWI, author seems to have dismissed the relevancy of such discussion anyways, it just seems to be one of those pop topics that comes up whenever possible and is accessible to the laymen (like discussions about gender popping up when a random sex gene discovery pops up)
Wooshed might feel good but the whole thing reads as a wispy joke to me, and every page 404s. Maybe if there was more content than surface level general falsehoods it'd provide enough to chew on, instead of dismiss
Not exactly, the conscious intent of communicating is important too. For example, someone in a coma may react reflexively, but they’re not communicating per se.
If they react reflexively, it communicates all sorts of things. It's not a traditional conversation, and there may not be bidirectional communication, but information is still being communicated.
No, a reflex action is not communication. You can hit someone’s knee and it produces a response. The knee isn’t communicating with you, it’s reacting to a stimuli.
No. You're confused about what constitutes as "communication". Communication does not mean conversation. The knee isn't conversing with you, but information is absolutely being communicated.
I would recommend familiarizing yourself with information theory and systems theory.
From the opening line on the Wikipedia article for Communication:
> Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information. Its precise definition is disputed and there are disagreements about whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication not only transmits meaning but also creates it.
If you argue from a position ignorant of information theory, it might seem that a knee jerk is not communication. But read through Shannon's A Mathematical Theory of Communication and you will understand differently.
I appreciate the detailed response. I am aware of the information theoretic definition, and I get that this definition is rejected or controversial. From the wiki you cited,
> Another interpretation is given by communication theorists Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, who characterize communication as a transmission of information brought about by the interaction of several components, such as a source, a message, an encoder, a channel, a decoder, and a receiver.[17] *The transmission view is rejected by transactional and constitutive views, which hold that communication is not just about the transmission of information but also about the creation of meaning.* (emphasis mine)
I’ll go one step further and say that I don’t think the Shannon definition of communication applies to physical responses to external stimuli (reflexive knee response, signals produced by plants when cut), or signals produced by chemical reactions (light given off the stars or suns).
Induced reactions or chemical changes are not communication per se because the meaning of the transmitted signal would not exist without an observer as there’s no internal mechanism which creates the signal without the observer.
In cell to cell communication, for example, a cell will create signals without the existence of another cell to interpret those signals. If a second cell picks up those signals, then it’s receiving communication. If however the second cell produces a stimulus to invoke a response from the first cell, the signal received would not have existed without the observer. In this sense, I think communication depends on the ability to transmit information without the provocation of observers or receivers, which is especially meaningful for biological systems because the signals they convey determine their survival.
By simply existing does not mean something is communicating (sun or stars), and reacting to external stimuli does not represent communication per se, only signaling.
But GDP is measured in dollars and not in amount of things produced. If everything is expensive in your country it will have larger GDP even producing less things.
Russia can turn into a war economy - which means GDP is nearly irrelevant. Right now they're doing warfare while still keeping the lights on at little inconvenience for the public. They can change that around.
You don’t just press a button that says “war economy” and then everything turns out fine. You drive massive inflation, weaken consumer markets, take on
massive debts and eventually run out of young men.
Pretty much every nation bar the US was on the verge of economic collapse by the end of WWI (and Russia’s did). The financial burden of two world wars killed the French and British empires. Germany’s WWII war economy was totally unstainable and the USSR’s was bankrolled by the US lend-lease program.
It’s not a panacea - it’s just what you have to do to drive enough military production to sustain a near-peer conflict.
They can shift production from consumer goods to war goods, but total productive capacity won't grow dramatically. Productive capacity will likely decline due to the large number of able bodied men sent to their deaths or to be maimed.
The most valuable company in Europe is Louis Vitton. Forgive me, I don't think Putin's quaking in his boots about when they'll weigh in.
GDP was a good war metric for an industrial economy, and fucking terrible for a services based one. There's never one metric that describes all. You know it, Goodhart knew it, anyone was worked with metrics ever knows it. This is rather important and frankly I don't get the glibness. Russia's not an unstoppable force but it's not a joke either.
> The purpose of the drip feeding is, unfortunately,
Absolutely not, it's not intentional.
- Suddenly, the world defense base needed to get on up to a level to match the world's 5th largest army, with all its stockpiles -- regardless of if its just lil ol Ukraine, Russia is putting its full effort in.
- Politics in US delayed it several months, I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least 6.
The war has been going on for a bit more than a thousand days now.
Your points would have been valid maybe one year into the war. Unless you’re suggesting the US military industrial complex takes three years to respond.
Quick reminder that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, before that they invaded Georgia and before that they took Chechnia. And yet even now the popular belief in the West is that the war in Ukraine will be the end of it and that some sort of a peace deal can hold.
One report from early in the first Trump administration (possibly apocryphal) was when Trump was being briefed about NATO commitments to defend all member countries. Trump supposedly was surprised that the US was committed to going to war with Russia if they invaded Latvia. The Baltic countries are very exposed and could be reached by land only through a narrow gap with Poland.
There isn't actually 4, but that 4th one you perceive...Notice ex. search doesn't do this, it's a stubborn Android engineering politics thing.
I can't even begin to explain how this happened, but, tl;dr: that 4th color was a huge problem to everyone involved. But, once it became a Big Thing, engineer middle managers...sigh. Not worth trying to explain. The amount of chicanery was really astonishing, odds are I'll never work at a BigCo again.
Now, they're stuck with it, even though VPs were insisting it to be fixed since day -100.
To all of your points , it sure looks like he's imitating the same logic to get that off-white...but then isn't using the important part: gotta use my/Google's color space.
That's the magic to get contrast without even having to see the colors or measure ratios or any of that BS. (tl;dr: HCT color space, it's CAM16 strapped to Lab* L, and then you can describe contrasting colors by a delta in tone / L)
reply