r00ty

Well I mean it’s true if you also belive trigger’s broom in only fools and horses is still the same broom.

Probably only older people from the UK will get the reference. Sorry.

I would say, now it’s learning that actually sticking your head in the sand is only ever a delaying tactic. But, if it DID learn that, it’d mean it has surpassed us already.

Yep. I also valid concerns. But those seem to be their next steps. I just wondered if there would be degradation. You wouldn’t even be able to tell until it reached the destination.

Definitely interesting stuff.

This is for communication, not computation or even cryptography. The point in transferring it this way is so as to maintain the unseen property of the photon.

I think my question on all this would be whether this would ultimately cause problems in terms of data integrity.

Currently most amplifiers for digital information are going to capture the information in the light, probably strip off any modulation to get to the raw data. Then re-modulate that using a new emitter.

The advantages of doing this over just amplifying the original light signal are the same reason switches/routers are store and forward (or at least decode to binary and re-modulate). When you decode the data from the modulated signal and then reproduce it, you are removing any noise that was present and reproducing a clean signal again.

If you just amplify light (or electrical) signals “as-is”, then you generally add noise every time you do this reducing the SNR a small amount. After enough times the signal will become non-recoverable.

So I guess my question is, does the process also have the same issue of an ultimate limit in how often you can re-transmit the signal without degradation.

Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but… I’ll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.

Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.

The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that’s generally a “store and forward” operation and thus would also break this system’s detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it’s then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.

What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever “reading” it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as “unseen” (for want of a better word). As such this will allow “secure” (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.

Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.

At home I’m on Linux but yes I also have a work laptop and I hate windows more and more daily.

Thanks AI. Remind me how many megawatt hours your model consumed to create?

This is the world most of us want to live in I would think.

He is not the one to deliver it. He doesn’t really want that. If he did, he wouldn’t want $1t let alone fight to get it. Let alone all the other vile shit he has done, and will do.

Of course not. As the merovingian in the matrix says. French is a fantastic language, especially to curse with.

Ahh so a trojan horse. Inside is a klingon bird of prey?

So far I’ve mostly avoided the whole “things that don’t need to be on the Internet” situation.

Non smart TV (well that period when they started adding smart features but they’re all out of date now so not even connected to the Internet)

All kitchen stuff is just kitchen stuff. No Internet.

Car is still offline.

Only real exception is smart thermostat, and that’s just because when the boiler was installed that’s what they put in.

Now, and yet also at any point in history, and also likely the future.

It’s as true today, as it was then?

Sure. But it’s to Mars, with Musk.

It’s interesting for everyone, but if the split is US news and World news, this is a US centric story. All of the players are US based. Like I say, the subreddit’s the naming convention these communities are based on had very much a “US” goes in news and “RoW” goes into WorldNews ethos.

I don’t see policies stating that here. So I think it’s a very different situation to the other place (and we can argue about why there’s two news communities, but that’s another story). But, I was just wondering if the moderation was done in the same vain.

I wonder if not allowing this on world news is a leftover from the reddit split between news/worldnews. In the rules here I cannot see anything that says news = US news. But on reddit the news sub DID have that rule. They would delete any non-us story.

As such worldnews was for all non-US news and in that case deleting this very US centric topic would be fair game.

There isn’t that clear cut difference between news/worldnews on the fediverse. It looks like the two communities were created to mirror reddit. But, the rules don’t align.

Also, even as a non American. I knew it would be OAN.

Then I suggest they use an XNOR pointer instead! Checkmate patent trolls!

Regret is such a long word, when I’m so, so tired.

Well I’d also be very weary of getting that close to the sun too.