Why is the idea that "gamifying war" is bad? What consitutes a game? If the answer is simply competition and strategy, then war is already a game and always has been. If a game has a requirement of something you do for pleasure, enjoyment, or recreation - well nobody is playing this game because it's fun. Now I'm sure some aspects are more fun than others, but you would be hard pressed to find a soldier on the front lines that doesn't want the war to stop because they are simply having too much fun. No, this points based approach is about applying 'game theory' and encouraging efficient use of resources to maximize impact. It's not to make it more fun - it's to make it more logistically sustainable.

I seem to recall that Bubblesort is faster than Quicksort in at least one situation. If you are inserting a single item into an array of sorted data, you can make it just a little bit faster if you do a bubblesort rather than a Quicksort. Now, have I ever needed that bit of knowledge? I can't say that I have.... but the concept is useful. Even really bad algorithms can be better than really good algorithms if you apply it in the right situation. But I didn't need to go to school for as long as I did to understand that concept.

where are we going to put all of that angular momentum?

I can do the same thing with a web cam and a wall of lava lamps.

It also might be the straw that breaks the camel's back - I think Utah is becoming less red and more purple every year because of these stupid laws.

The only reason people even kind of trust Wikipedia is the religious use of citations. AI powered chat bots should use something similar.

According to LastPass, they salt the master password with the username before applying a 1-way hash using 100,100 rounds of PBKDF2-SHA256. This slows down anyone hoping to decrypt the password and almost guarantees no two vaults will have the same 256 bit decryption key. LastPass should have addressed the human error of (re)using weak or leaked passwords. 1Passwords use of a secret key does a lot to solve this problem.

One thing most people don't realize is that the master password is run through a hashing chain that's intended to be long and computationally expensive for anyone taking guesses at a password. This hash chain is what converts a human readable password to a 256 bit encryption key (albeit one with low entropy). If LastPass was smart enough to salt the master password before hashing it, attackers would likely have no success on trying the se master password on all vaults.

I just realized I never clarified the title of my previous comment. We should already be dead because the most dangerous secrets that should NEVER have been released, you can read about on Wikipedia. I'm referring to nuclear weapons where the Soviet Union was able to steal enough information about the Manhattan project that they were only a few years behind in developing their own nukes and quickly became very good at it. If you want to talk about security of information causing the apocalypse, you are about 80 years late. That cat is out of the bag and it may yet be the "apocalypse" of which you speak.

Secret information USUALLY depreciates in value pretty rapidly. Technological advancement is a moving target, so if you don't get that information for 5 years, you are still 5 years behind. The biggest weakness to quantum computers is our dependence on asymmetric encryption (like RSA and ECC) and how hard they are to develop and prove that they are, if not unbreakable, at least extremely hard to break for the forseable future. Currently, the most common symmetric algorithms do not appear to be vulnerabile to quantum algorithms (at least not vulnerable enough that it couldn't be mitigated by doubling the key length which is relatively easy). There is a LOT of work going on behind the scenes to replace the aging RSA and the newer, but still vulnerable, ECC algorithms to harden against quantum computing. Even if there is a period of vulnerability, personal quantum computers (PQCs) are still a very long way off. It's not safe to bet against technological advances in the computing space, but I dare say that is at least 25 years down the road. Your biggest concern will be state actors and rogue professionals abusing their access to quantum computers (like IT professionals installing cryptocurrency miners on systems they have access to). The Microsoft Support scammers in India won't be using quantum computers to steal your credit card information for a very long time.

Why? For the same reason I shouldn't have to learn how to read or write legal code in high school. Computer Science is a specialized skill that most minds aren't good at. On the other hand, keeping computer literacy courses up-to-date with the fast changing times will be a continuing challenge. Basic security concepts, recognizing scams, avoiding risk, and good credential management (passwords need to die) are very important skills to have living in an online world. A true Computer Science requirement would be an unappreciated and pointless burden to most students.

What counts as a "process" when preparing food? Picking it off the tree? Removing a stem? Cutting it? Freezing it? Cooking it? Mixing it with other foods? Adding chemicals? Deep frying it? What counts as a chemical? Does water count as a chemical? Adding preservatives? Both salt and capsaicin are preservatives. You could argue that fruit off the vine is already ultra processed food - it certainly didn't look that way when it was still in the ground. What natural processes made it healthy for us to eat? This is the mark of bad food science or pseudo food science. It makes very broad claims and very rarely tries to isolate cause and effect. The word "processed" isn't nearly well enough defined for an article or headline like this. I would also like to point out the claim about people being born after 1990 being at a higher risk of cancer than people born before 1970 has the potential for survivorship bias unless that was properly accounted for.

So if a text message is 190 bytes long, it would take 45 minutes to send a single text message at 0.54 bits per second. Audio for phone conversations is usually measured in kilobits per second, so thousands of times longer.

That's a fine example of the problem I am trying to illustrate - you can't say that a Yen is a cent equivalent. It's not - they are similar in value, yes but they are by no definition equivalent. A currency is basically a unit of measure. It just measures value instead of a physical property like distance. To say that one currency is greater than another because you can buy more of something with 1 of currency X than you can with 1 of currency Y is like saying that a mile is greater than a kilometer because a mile is a greater distance than a kilometer. In reality, the reverse is true. The kilometer is greater than the mile because more people use it.

Relative Value Between Currencies is Meaningless. For example, the Japanese Yen is currently worth 0.0087 according to Google as of this writing. The Japanese economy is much stronger than the Russian economy, so why is the Russian Ruble worth more? The true strength of a currency is determined by a few factors, but the direct trade value isn't really one of them. These factors include how many people are willing to accept your currency, the total value of goods exchanged using that currency over a given time, and the relative stability of a currency. To illustrate why relative stability is important, consider cryptocurrency. Is it easier to pay your rent/mortgage in cryptocurrency? Or USD? Why wouldn't landlords accept cryptocurrency? The most likely reason is because it is still very volatile. The strength of a currency is ultimately a popularity contest.