asdaddasdad's comments

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Galactic Algorithm

So what quantum value is it? Shouldn't the argument then at least say "the number is greater than the number of possible states of the universe", or something like that?

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Galactic Algorithm

Doing computations with single atoms also doesn't sound very practical.

Measuring distances, I suppose there could be numerous ways, like measuring the gravity or electric pull (not sure what it is called in English). I think only Quantum theory says we can not measure to arbitrary precision, or at least if we do, there are other issue. Still, that would be another argument than simply pointing at the number of atoms.

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Galactic Algorithm

What counts as an interaction? It seems to me there can be an infinite number of interactions between just two atoms.

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Galactic Algorithm

As I said, one atom per digit is not really natural. Just two atoms could encode an infinite number of numbers, by measuring their distance. Well except quantum physics might get in the way, not allowing us to measure with arbitrary precision. But that would be another argument.

Another argument would perhaps be the energy required to do the computation. Maybe that relates more directly to the number of atoms in the universe, via Einstein's equation?

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Galactic Algorithm

I've never understood the "number of the atoms in the universe" argument. The number of states the universe can be in doesn't seem to be equal to the number of atoms. For example, just two atoms could encode lots of numbers simply by using their distance. Quantum physics would affect it, but I mean in principle: we are not switching atoms on and off to encode state.

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Michel Foucault: Power and Struggle

"Positive Outlook" maybe sounds a bit naive. I mean that people have the means to do things and change things. Not everything is just a power play. Of course some situations in the world can be very bad, but even then I don't see how musing about power structures would help.

I guess it is (for me) about practical approaches and solutions vs theoretical musings.

Also in general people are not all that bad. Even most bad people are just misguided, not inherently bad.

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Report: Young adults more likely to live with parents than spouses

I would guess that comparison to be very misleading. Singles presumably don't want to live in the countryside, they want to live in big cities with jobs and other people they could meet. In big cities, there tends to be little space for building, so especially little space for building 3 car garages.

So I would guess most 3 car garages are built in the countryside, where there is lots of space for building.

The two numbers point to completely separate issues.

If singles would be willing to move to the countryside, perhaps they wouldn't have a problem to find accommodation. (A job could be a different matter).

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: Michel Foucault: Power and Struggle

Fair enough if it is useful for you. I am curious what makes it useful, as it seems to be a very negative and destructive way of thinking. At least I have never met an adherent to that philosophy with a positive outlook on things.

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: EU brings in 'right to repair' rules for appliances

If you don't want pollution, regulate pollution. But this "everything should be repaired and the world would be better" is pure ideology. They think they can achieve less pollution by enforcing repairs. They are not businessmen. They don't know the actual problems with production and repairs. They should let businesses figure out how to reduce waste and pollution, not tell them what to do.

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: EU brings in 'right to repair' rules for appliances

Not sure what EU rules you are referring to. All the phones I had were chargeable by standard USB socket and rootable, afaik.

You have things like fairphone where you can exchange and upgrade parts. In general, the magic of capitalism is that if people want something, somebody will eventually make it.

I also wonder how much of companies trying to prevent repairs is actually BECAUSE of regulations. Like they could be liable if something goes wrong. What if somebody tries to repair a phone, does it wrong, and the battery explodes. Who would be liable?

Your final point, with you being able to do a lot of repairs: you are not normal in that respect. Most people could not do that.

And even the hourly rate of most people would probably make it ineffective for them to do it, even if they could.

Since it is inefficient, I question the assumption that repairs are automatically good for the environment. Maybe buying a newer, more energy efficient machine every couple of years is better in some cases, especially if the old machine is recycled properly.

I would be much more in favor of regulations with respect to recycling. This "repairing is better" is mostly ideology and virtue signalling.

asdaddasdad | 6 years ago | on: EU brings in 'right to repair' rules for appliances

Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices.

The problem here is that people don't really want these devices. Maybe they think they want them, but in reality the effort to have them repaired would be too much to them. As others have pointed out, wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.

page 1