It depends what you mean by "complexity". Sure Conway's game of life seems like a set of simple rules but so does the axiomization of the natural numbers, see the Peano Axioms. Despite being "simple" it still leads to Godel's incompleteness theorem.

I would image the "complexity" of Conway's Game of life is more complex than you would think. I'm not even sure we could define the game as "simple" to begin with.

I used it

I've been using Intel Clear Linux for a few years now. I was pretty happy with its constant stream of updates and optimized libraries. I used it for math and AI related compute. Pretty bummed they discontinued it. Not sure what distro I will have to use but I'm sure whatever I pick (minus Gentoo) will not be as performant.

running a model and training a model are two different things. Their claim is they _trained_ their model for millions of dollars not billions like their competitors.

but apparently that's what the world runs on

when does the The Butlerian Jihad begin?

>These are problems with theories, not with physical reality.

Theories don't exist in physical reality? The model of a physical system doesn't share the same complexity?

> Your argument is complete nonsense.

You don't get the argument to begin with. Anyway we do agree that QCs are BS.

>That argument is nonsense. Using a part of a complex system as a computer is not a problem for the complex system. Otherwise you would run into this effect already with electronic computers or even an Abacus.

Actually a complex system talking or referring to itself is indeed a huge problem. See Godel's Incompleteness and the Halting Problem.

>Otherwise you would run into this effect already with electronic computers or even an Abacus.

You do run into these types of problems.. at least at sufficient scale. An Abacus is bad at math where the numbers are larger than the Abacus itself. Electronic computers are bad at quantum chemistry.

>This is how we can simulate electrons using electronics.

But how well does that scale? Also one of quantum computers' use-case is exactly that because classical computers are so bad at it.

If we assume quantum mechanics is the fundamental theory of reality and then isn't the universe some huge quantum computer? If that is true how can a computer simulate itself?

Well said.

I would also add: if I have something to say about an an issue, I (try to) directly address the issue, not the person. Even when I find them aggravating. What little power we do have relates to discussion and sharing ideas about the issues at hand, and what charities we do — or don't — thoughtfully engage with.

While many are locked to one side or the other in our highly polarized political climate, some people can be moved by reasoned discussion. I even try to be one of those people. Mostly. :)

... scrolls past giant banner ads, to find the (already checked) "Ads Disabled Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!"

To your point, it's ccertainly perfect for this story.

But you know, they have to do something to increase revenue, since they've been entirely unable to update the site's code... you know, like supporting Unicode, which was introduced in 1991. Not to mention a bunch of useful HTML and trivial convenience features like markdown. Or making the firehose useful, or coming up with a modern user-moderation system.

I don't visit https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsoylentnews.org any longer — not my cup of tea, community-wise — but it's worth noting they fixed the slashdot codebase years ago.

I still chuckle when Slashdot fronts me with an ad telling me I should put my code on their archive; they can't even manage this place worth a damn, and they want me to trust them with my code? That's a solid LOL. Also, No.

But we've dropped really low if we even skip OP or can't remember it a couple PgDn's further, haven't we.

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

Now, would you like a slightly smaller burger with your slightly smaller portion of fries?

BTW, that'll be 5% more with the new pricing.

Raising a question is asking a question

Sure. But that's not the phrase. The phrase is "raises the question."

FTFS:

Voters don't like high prices, so they punished the Democrats for being in charge when inflation hit.

Well, actually, voters don't like high prices, so they punished the Democrats for being in charge when corporate price gouging and housing price gouging hit and never backed off.

Also, because they have no other lever to "encourage" the corrupt political system to do something about it. Not that they will, of course. Have to keep those sweet corporate bribe flows running smoothly.