this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
512 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2131 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But this is not like the past. Quantum computers is not an step in evolution, it is a jump, as if from no computers to computers. Of course it's possible, but there is no basis or indication for it and so no reason to assume it. Why believe the less likely thing instead of the more likely?

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not a conventional computer. Would you agree?

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which one? A super computer? Its just faster than a conventional computer by a factor that doesn't matter. A quantum computer? The public field would be way closer to that if "the government" had one that would be useful.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Obviously you are not aware a Quantum does not operate like a conventional computer. That's fine. No reason to go further.

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, but I am. That's why I said what I said. Even if they have one, it will be severely lacking; indicated by where public research is at.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can't even concede that Quantum computing is not convententual computing, why would your idea of research be valid?

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

But I am! Quantum computing is not conventional computing. See!

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The OP added conventional computing to their verbiage because they knew what they said was not true of Quantim computing. Thus my response.

Same as you adding the word public to research. Neither of us has any idea on the extent of research by Google, IBM and especially the NSA. Having worked in R&D before, I can tell you that not 50% is known to the public. The NSÀ, who run their own development and research-nothing at all. So, I consider your research argument faulty on its face..