Skanda
I'm Amod too!
- 6,662
- 4,506
We need to burn that entire field to the ground. There is nothing scientific about the way they act.
- 1
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
We need to burn that entire field to the ground. There is nothing scientific about the way they act.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,431
- 73,493
But to answer the following question of, "Ok well what popular science publication is good?" is that there isn't, and it's not journalists fault.
Everything that could possibly come out of pop science publications is overstated several times to the point where if you follow scientific trends at that level you'll think we're a few years away from a technological singularity. The reason for this is that researchers overstate their progress to get more money, science journal publishers overstate their publications to get more prestige, and popular science journalists overstate everything to get more clicks.
Everything that could possibly come out of pop science publications is overstated several times to the point where if you follow scientific trends at that level you'll think we're a few years away from a technological singularity. The reason for this is that researchers overstate their progress to get more money, science journal publishers overstate their publications to get more prestige, and popular science journalists overstate everything to get more clicks.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,446
- 33,697
I don't know why this shit has changed but when I was a wee lad in science class, the basic principle was if you didn't provide all the data, details on instruments, methodology for testing, etc., then the entire thing was worthless exercise because no one should believe you.
Now half the "industry" rags they purport to be science journals are apparently just full of ads and unsubstantiated claims. Last time I was at the doctors, it was downright scary that you could barely tell the difference between a drug ad and a drug white paper on those magazines. They just used some more fancy words in the text version.
Now half the "industry" rags they purport to be science journals are apparently just full of ads and unsubstantiated claims. Last time I was at the doctors, it was downright scary that you could barely tell the difference between a drug ad and a drug white paper on those magazines. They just used some more fancy words in the text version.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
If it ain't in a peer reviewed publication (even some of those are bad) it's tabloid trash essentially
Omi43221
Trakanon Raider
- 924
- 824
IBM is going to sell computers millions of times faster than any ever made
Saw this yesterday. Seems pretty amazing I wonder what things it will be applied to. Then I was thinking how fast does bit coin price drop if this is a good solution for mining.
Saw this yesterday. Seems pretty amazing I wonder what things it will be applied to. Then I was thinking how fast does bit coin price drop if this is a good solution for mining.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,446
- 33,697
Quantum computing is the new fusion, it's always "only three to five years away".
I don't think anyone has actually solved the problem with durability of entanglement yet?
- 2
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
So no practical breakthrough only some execs blowing smoke because they think quantum computing is close and they want some poor engineer to program an API to bridge communications between legacy and said still very theoretical quantum computers. I will take pure hype clickbait articles for 500 Alex!
It will be exciting when they demo the thing playing crysis 15 on max settings.
- 1
- 1
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,926
- 9,576
D-Wave has good quantum computers, but they're specialized systems for annealing (basically, exploration of multi-dimensional score function to find the maximum value). Immensely faster than any classical supercomputer for that specific problem, useless for every other.
There's no general purpose quantum computer in sight.
Denaut
Trump's Staff
- 2,739
- 1,279
This is my understanding of quantum computers, they will not and can not replace the computers we use in our daily lives. They will be incredibly useful for specific domains of problems, mostly in scientific research and especially for things like cryptography, but we almost certainly will never be gaming on one in our lifetime.
Oldbased
> Than U
- 27,725
- 65,162
Careful.
When I was born no one had a computer in their house and I was an adult before people had cell phones in their lives. If I wasn't ill my life would only be half over.
In 40-50 years we could be "driving" to the moon for all we know.
Works in the other way as well though in some regards. 3 years before I was born we walked on the moon, the last time being year I was born and not since. Sometimes science leaps forward, sometimes it leaps backwards.
All it takes is discovery, invention and desire and anything is possible.
Last edited:
Denaut
Trump's Staff
- 2,739
- 1,279
Possibly, I think it is more that they are just fundamentally different and useful for solving different types of problems. The problems computers solve in our daily life aren't well suited to these types of solutions. I think there will be another "transistor" revolution we have yet to see, I just don't think it will come from quantum computers.
Or humanity invents a computer intelligent enough to have A.I. and that computer invents a whole mess of shit we havent imagined yet.
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
You mean a whole mess of shit to kill us with?
10 to the power of graham's number, ways to kill a meatbag?
- 1
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,431
- 73,493
Just a small nitpicky point, us not going to the moon since the apollo missions isn't really science taking a leap backward. The only thing stopping us from making a rocket with 500k gallons of rocket fuel is the desire, not the science.
I think science only takes a step back when a mistake is made and people abandon a working model, or when information is destroyed (library of alexandria etc).
But I agree with your overall point, it's difficult to anticipate where we'll be in 50 years.
- 21,131
- 80,758
Fake news. Fake chart.
Read this twitter feed and tell me if you think The Guardian is placed accurately:
So.Much.Guardian (@SoMuchGuardian) on Twitter
- 1
- 7,879
- 507
It's not fucking science preventing us from going to the moon, there wasn't a leap backwards.
- 24,487
- 45,378
Did you make up the 500k number on the spot or did you know the Saturn V carries almost exactly 500k gallons of kerosene+lox?