• 1 Post
  • 86 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • 10 years ago I learnt that southern New Zealand slang uses bespoke or custom as an indicator of poor quality. Someone shittly welded a tow ball onto their car, that’s a ‘custom job’.

    Your poorly assembled second hand IKEA bookshelf that’s falling apart and well fucked? A bespoke piece of furniture.

    Those words have never bothered me since. Thanks kiwis.




  • Well your first statement is a subtle strawman. Ross said this way is the only way, because no one else is trying, not that it was the right way.

    Secondly, fallacy fallacy, just because it’s a false dichotomy doesn’t mean it’s not also correct. Can anyone just start up another initiative now? Not technically, but practically. Or would any serious attempt just join this movement to add to the momentum. Then if this fails, when can another attempt be made, how long till the ‘political will’ burnt by this campaign is regenerated?









  • No, I am not sure that I am.

    Photonic processing, whilst very cool and super exciting, is not a quantum thing… Maxwells equations are exceedingly classical.

    As for the rest it’s transistor design optimisation, enabled predominantly by materials science and ASMLs EUV tech I guess:), but still exploits the same underlying ‘quantum 1.0’ physics.

    Spintronics (which could be what you mean by 2D) is for sure in-between (1.5?), leveraging spin for low energy compute.

    Quantum 2.0 is systems exploiting entanglement and superposition - i.e. qubits in a QPU (and a few quantum sensing applications).



  • Good question. It would be application specific. I think evanescencnt wave coupling in EM radiation is considered " very classical" (whatever that actually means). But utilizing wave particle duality for tunneling devices is past quantum 1.0 (1.5 maybe?). However, superconductivity tunneling in Josephson junctions in a SQUID is closer to quantum 1.0, but 2.0 if used to generate entangled states for superconducting qbits for quantum computing.

    Clear as mud right?



  • Quantum Physics Postdoc here. Although technically correct this is also somewhat misleading. You need the band structure of solids, which is due to quantization and Pauli exclusion principle. The same quantum mechanics that explains why we did those strange electron energy levels for atoms in highschool. The majority of quantum mechanics, however, is not required: coherence, spin, entanglement, superposition. In the field we describe semiconductors as quantum 1.0, and devices that use entanglement and superposition (i.e. a quantum computer) as quantum 2.0, and smear everything else in-between. This


  • mranachi@aussie.zonetoAtheist Memes@lemmy.worldGood question
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I mean you last line sums it up, If on your balance you can weight the sum total of human systematic logical effort against your anecdotal experience then what is the point of discussion at all?

    And you want to know when that looks really ugly? When the faithful see things like “the light and hope brought by faith” and are blind to rivers of blood and human suffering that have not ceased to this day enabled and perpetuated by faith.

    It doesn’t matter if there is a god, by the things done in God’s name the concept of faith must be reject for humanities sake.