I wish people would understand that extremist thinking is wrong and obtuse - just as it seems to most effective solution in your case it starts looking naive and damaging if you become the target just because you have a bad face or bad luck.
Fair point, but I can’t stop wondering whether the crux of the issue wasn’t the OS and the decisions that go back to iPhone or iPod. I can’t recall the details, but they tried to get MacOS to work and then decided to go with the alternative. I can only speculate on both that MacOS must have had a mobile story/dream since Newton and more so after nexstep.
So I wonder if what the article is pointing at wasn’t actually the inability of merging iOS and MacOS fully more than anything.
It’s unfortunately the case in 21st century in unexpected places with systemic issues and it can get worse — e.g. repeated surgeries under influence, etc.
That is the article. There’s no article, just a rehash of the coastline paradox. All while missing most interesting parts. The Wikipedia article is a much better exposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox).
First, it can’t have an exact length because it’s not a static thing, but a process.
Second, as opposed to fractals that can be zoomed in forever, our measurements seem to hit some limits, so the reality is not quite like fractals in this sense.
Of course, it all makes sense if you think about it. What’s perhaps more interesting is we can’t “really measure” anything absolutely and the whole idea of absolute measures becomes rather tricky once you get to physics. In fact it gets philosophical and disputed and you realize that nothing is quite certain, nor quite agreed upon.
I think Quanta Magazine does a good job making justice to these things though.
> Overall, the work lacks a self-consistent and transparent accounting of resources, making its central claims difficult to substantiate and leaving a strong sense of sensationalism and hype, rather than honest scientific exposition.
You are being disingenuous with your selective quoting;
Here is what the authors actually say w.r.t. the criticisms (all the comments are worth reading);
Our primary emphasis is ECC-256. Elliptic curve cryptography is widely deployed in modern systems, e.g., internet security and cryptocurrency.
For ECC-256, the space-efficient architecture uses 9,739 qubits with < 3-year runtime, the balanced architecture uses 11,961 qubits with < 1-year runtime, and the time-efficient architecture uses ~19,000 qubits with ~52-day runtime (or ~26,000 qubits with ~10-day runtime using higher parallelism). Space and time overheads are reported together within each architecture, not mixed across regimes.
The claim that our scheme requires 117 years selectively cites RSA-2048 under the most space-constrained architecture, which is one corner of a trade-off space we present clearly in Figure 3 of the work. We include RSA-2048 for completeness, and state explicitly that its runtimes are one to two orders of magnitude longer.
We believe our clearly labeled trade-offs constitute exactly the transparent resource accounting the commenter calls for.
That comment was one of the first (hence the points) with the above opinionated (and wrong) conclusion. The authors explicitly refuted it with their response which i have highlighted. The paper/subject is highly technical and so without showing both sides of the argument posting only the (opinionated) conclusion as-if it was a done deal is wrong.
PS: There are now more technical comments with the authors themselves addressing the criticisms.
> These papers are as relevant to engineering/product stage as every other "new battery" or "new cancer" treatment are at the moment.
The growth of battery and a few other technologies have been frustrating in the past decade. But I wouldn't put cancer research alongside those. It's not every day that we encounter improvements in cancer treatments. The important fact to note is that cancer survival rates have improved significantly in the past few decades. Though, I'm worried that the current political climate will scuttle that progress.
I'm curious. Are they in the market in large enough volumes yet? I've been waiting for ages for something better than Li-Ion and LiPo tech to become widely available. We need much higher energy densities, and preferably without the fire hazard.
(Both of these are a couple of years old. I'm sure there's newer data out there that looks even beter.)
Newer batteries chemistries are slowly arriving, but they mostly aren't replacing Li-ion because Li-ion is getting better all the time. Except in specific circumstances. Like the Sodium-Ion ones that work far better at low temperatures and entered mass production two months ago:
The “do it first, apologize later” will be the general principle with anything. It’s going to be hard and futile to prove even if they don’t do it through ToS first. Amazon has one of the largest corporate training sets out there:)
reply