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?

The cloud delivers something no managed onprem datacenter could, ephemeral environments. That's the true power of the cloud and its abstractions. But what ends up happening is developers use the cloud like they would use an onprem datacenter. They treat their infra as pets. Maybe they use IaC, but still will spin up infrastructure manually in the console and track it with an excel spreadsheet. And if they do use IaC it's old, not updated and they will complain their state is corrupted when they do aforementioned manual things in the console.

No the problem is like most things, if not all. The user of the tool and not the tool itself.

>It really shows how many people have little to no analytical thinking and are just knee-jerk, emotional thinkers who immediately go to their biases and assumptions.

I think humanity in general is irrational and emotional thinkers. What we tend to call "rational thinking" is more of a special case and not the norm. The problem is those who are "critical thinkers" get shouted down from all the noise. Social media has made this worse but it's always existed. It's always been a problem. Even Plato talked about it. How do we solve it? No idea.

In my experience, albeit it's limited, the best teams are teams of people who can trust one another. That doesn't mean you need to be friends but it does mean you need to care about one another in some sense. Why would I trust someone who doesn't care about me? So I find these teams of people who just treat each other like "co-workers" tend to deliver subpar products because they don't really.. care.

That doesn't mean you need to take a bullet for them but maybe just treat them with respect and dignity. Sort of like how you would want to be treated. I wonder if there is some rule about this.

I'm not sure it could be tested directly. It's just a hypothesis. But depending on how much these hidden objects interact with gravity it could explain the missing mass of large scale objects like galaxies.

The problems I see with WIMPs is we would have discovered these objects by now. Dark matter pervades the entire universe, they should be everywhere. Even on how weakly they interact surely at high energies something would have appeared.

Maybe dark matter exists in a spatial dimension we don't have access to or is hidden. But gravity still interacts with this mass since the gravity field spans all spatial dimensions.