WolfLink

joined 1 year ago
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If the ISP doesn't provide V6 though it's time to switch ISPs.

cries in USA

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 7 points 16 hours ago

I got a huge reduction in random login attempts when I changed my ssh port away from the default.

(Of course I also have actual security measures like log in by key only)

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 22 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I went ahead and read the article. I know a bit about quantum computing. Here’s my summary of it:

Entanglement is a useful resource for quantum networking, enabling things like quantum-secure communication and distributed quantum computing.

TLDR The paper describes algorithms to more efficiently create a form of entanglement that’s useful from the error-prone “dirty” entanglement you get from entanglement-generating hardware.

When you make entanglement, it often doesn’t come out perfect, and you need a technique to “distill” “good” entangled states out of a collection of “dirty” entangled states.

The typical “rules” for this involve two parties that create dirty shared entanglement (shared entanglement means a pair of entangled qubits, but each party has one of the qubits). They can then do whatever they like with their qubits individually and can communicate (over classical channels e.g. the internet) but they can’t do anything “quantum” between the two of them.

This paper analyzes the case where there is a 3rd party that follows these same rules but has been previously set up as an “entanglement battery”, which means preparing it in a special state from which entanglement can be “borrowed” or “returned” to the battery using only local operations and classical communication.

In particular it’s looking for “reversible” (meaning no loss in total entanglement over the process) “entanglement manipulation” (changing the entanglement from one form into another, presumably more useful form). It goes into a lot of analysis as to what the limits on this process are, and makes analogies to how engines work in thermodynamics.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 9 points 23 hours ago (11 children)

This sounds like someone learning. It’s incredibly hard to admit you were wrong and do better. Don’t shame her for it.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I think I have had an instructor put a mirror in the pool before lol

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I doubt someone who has only ever read about swimming could do it in deep, cold water. But they are talking about taking it to a swimming pool to practice. I think they’ll be fine.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Probably. Take it to the shallow part of a pool (where you can stand up if you need to) and practice until you are comfortable trying more.

Also, watch some videos. I think it’s easier to learn something like swimming by watching others than by reading about it.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago

The extra $20 is for taking the test again with the answer sheet next to you

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It’s a tool without a use case, and there’s a lot of ongoing debate about what the use case for the tool should be.

It’s completely valid to want the tool to just be a tool and “nothing more”.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

When done well it greatly expands the game’s replayability.

When done poorly it feels bland and boring.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 34 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You should have to fill it in by climbing a big tower

 
 
view more: next ›