One would be in my driveway but we cancelled it right when it was about to be delivered when Elon began his decline into madness. Know your audience and your buyers man. Maybe hide your alt right nonsense when your buyers love the earth and the environment.
I like to imagine aliens visiting earth and walking straight past us and communing with Pando.
> Recent 2024 analysis confirmed it is at least 16,000 years old, with possibilities ranging up to 80,000 years, making it one of the oldest living organisms.
I can only describe it being overcome with a sense of love and harmony. I was giggling ear-to-ear the whole time I was there.
Great works of art are meant to be religious experiences. At Falling water, every part of the house & estate feels like it was meant to be there. The shapes and curves feel so right. The emphasis on integrating natural materials makes it feel one with nature. Frank Lloyd wright cared a lot about sight lines, which makes every space easy on the eyes.
I've had similar experiences in great Basilicas[0] such as Sagrada Familia[1]. Smaller objects have evoked similar feelings too. Be that cars (The Ferrari Roma[2] or Alfa 33 Stadale[3]) or intricate jewelery (Earrings [4] or watches [5]). Great beauty feels divine, and Fallingwater is one such example.
You are assuming that progress on factoring will be smooth, but this is unlikely to be true. The scaling challenges of quantum computers are very front-loaded. I know this sounds crazy, but there is a sense in which the step from 15 to 21 is larger than the step from 21 to 1522605027922533360535618378132637429718068114961380688657908494580122963258952897654000350692006139 (the RSA100 challenge number).
Consider the neutral atom proposal from TFA. They say they need tens of thousands of qubits to attack 256 bit keys. Existing machines have demonstrated six thousand atom qubits [1]. Since the size is ~halfway there, why haven't the existing machines broken 128 bit keys yet? Basically: because they need to improve gate fidelity and do system integration to combine together various pieces that have so far only been demonstrated separately and solve some other problems. These dense block codes have minimum sizes and minimum qubit qualities you must satisfy in order for the code to function. In that kind of situation, gradual improvement can take you surprisingly suddenly from "the dense code isn't working yet so I can't factor 21" to "the dense code is working great now, so I can factor RSA100". Probably things won't play out quite like that... but if your job is to be prepared for quantum attacks then you really need to worry about those kinds of scenarios.
1) yes, everything is affected, but everything else is being migrated to PQC as we speak
2) "256-bit encryption" has different meanings in different contexts. "256-bit security" generally refers to cryptosystem for which an attack takes roughly 2^256 operations. this is true for AES-256 (symmetric encryption) assuming classical adversaries. this is not true for elliptic curve-based algorithms even though the standard curves are "256-bit curves", but that refers to the size of the group and consequently to the size of the private key. the best general attacks use Pollard's rho algorithm which takes roughly 2^128 operations, i.e., 256-bit curves have 128-bit security.
in the context of quantum attackers, AES-256 is still fine although theoretically QCs halve the security; however its not that big of a deal in practice and ultimately AES-128 is still fine, because doing 2^64 "quantum operations" is presumed to be difficult to do in practice due to parallelization issues etc.
the elliptic curve signatures (used in Bitcoin) are attacked using Shor's algorithm where the big deal is that it is asymptotically polynomial (about O(n^3)) meaning that factoring a 256-bit number is only 256^3/4^3 = 262144x more difficult compared to factoring 15. this is a big difference from "standard" exponential complexity where the difficulty increases exponentially by factors of 2^n. (+ lets ignore that elliptic curve signatures dont rely on factoring but the problem is essentially the same because Shor does both because those are hidden subgroup problems)
the analysis is more complex but most of it is essentially in that paper and explains it nicely.
Your bank doesn’t depend only on cryptography. It would be still a lot of effort to simply make transfer from a bank account. Quantum computer will not magically give an answer for a password of a hash you don’t have. TLS is moving to post quantum as we speak.
For crypto currency you have all the data you need to break whole system ready in your hands as you will be able to produce private key from public keys of wallets. Cryptocurrency depends only on cryptography.
2. Deriving the private key(s) from the public key(s)
3. Creating and broadcasting its own transaction using the stolen keypairs before the original transaction confirms (presumably with a higher fee to win the confirmation race).
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: correction: every transaction completely spends any selected UTXO of an associated keypair, not all of the "source keypairs' funds". Thus the attack vector also includes being able to steal from any keypair that has ever made a transaction and also has UTXOs.
The newest transaction mechanism (taproot; P2TR) exposes the public key of the receiver as part of the transaction. If it becomes more commonly used, the supply of bitcoins with exposed public keys would start going up again. See figure 5 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.28846#page=14 .
If your bank’s encryption is broken in the future, then, to recover, you will need to change your password, and that’s all. Bitcoin does not have that luxury.
Also, your bank can switch to securing TLS with post-quantum key exchange algorithms with little difficulty and with no particular scalability or re-architecting challenges.
As for “256-bit”, the best known quantum attack against symmetric ciphers is Grover’s algorithm, and Grover’s algorithm will never break a targeted 256-bit symmetric key in the lifetime of the universe even if run by a hypothetical alien civilization with a Dyson sphere. (It might plausibly break one of many targeted keys in a multi-key attack run by advanced aliens, but this won’t steal your money and it could be easily mitigated by moving to 384 or 512 bits.)
All serious financial businesses already have a quantum strategy and are actively working on transitioning their cryptography to post-quantum secure algorithms.
Bitcoin doesn't use 256 bit encryption, unless you mean 256-bit hashing. The cryptographic algorithms that are mostly under quantum threat are asymmetric, e.g. digital signatures.
> All serious financial businesses already have a quantum strategy and are actively working on transitioning their cryptography to post-quantum secure algorithms.
That’s hilarious and it’s not even April 1 anymore.
Lots of serious financial businesses still use FTP or use SFTP running some unbelievably bad server implementation on a Windows machine somewhere that uses such outdated cryptography that it doesn’t even interoperate with modern OpenSSH. Operations do not necessarily score highly on the ACID scale. It’s tied together with duct tape and baling wire.
On the other hand, the system works and is really remarkably resilient to various failure modes. You would be hard pressed to cause more than severe annoyance by compromising these crappy old systems.
I work in the sector, and I'm responsible in my own organisation for our quantum strategy. Most, if not all, of the serious players are doing this. This doesn't mean we have replaced all our old crypto; far from it.
NIST has defined a timeline for post quantum readiness to be complete by 2035. Crypto migrations historically take a long time; you can't just replace your own stuff, or upgrade just a server. All the clients that interact have to upgrade as well or it all breaks.
> If Bitcoin is broken then your bank encryption and everything else is broken also.
Its a lot easier for your bank to change encryption methods than it is for bitcoin. Presumably you mean TLS here (where else do banks use encryption? Disk encryption?). People are already deploying experiments with quantum-proof TLS.
> As far as I know quantum computers still can't even honestly factor 7x3=21, so you are good. And the 5x3=15 is iffy about how honest that was either.
This is probably the wrong way to look at it. Once you start multiplying numbers together (for real, using error corrected qubits), you are already like 85% there. Like if this was a marathon, the multiplying thing is like a km from the finish line. By the time you start seeing people there the race would already be mostly over.
I still don’t really get the argument, like okay this extremely rich theoretical attacker can obtain the private key for the cert my service uses, and somehow they’re able to sniff my traffic and could then somehow extract creds. But that doesn’t give them my 2fa which is needed to book each transaction, and as soon as these attacks are in the wild anti fraud/surveillance systems will be in much harder mode.
I don’t see QC coming as meaning bank accounts will be emptied.
My bank definitely doesn't require 2FA on every transaction. It only requires it to log in. I guess other people have more security concious banks then me.
Even still, i think there is some benefit to attackers being able to passively monitor connections. Getting the info neccesary to conduct some other type of fraud outside of the system. Lots of frauds live or die on knowing enough about the victim's financial situation.
However it really doesn't matter, when it happens we will just switch to different encryption.
It’s turning into a bit of a grift now. So many crypto agility “consultants “ popping up with their slop graphics. Never mind the fact that even if a relevant quantum computer is built it will still cost the user millions of dollars to break each RSA key pair…
I dont neccesarily think it would cost millions per key pair. Hard to say with the technology so immature, but it seems like the sort of thing with huge upfront costs but low marginal costs. Once you have a QC you dont have to build a new one for the next key pair.
Has there ever been a period o time where people saw a bubble coming and that we were in one, but it just inexorably refused to pop/drug out this long? This isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m wondering how this period compares to other irrational periods of the economy like railroad fever etc.
Not at all, there is a famous saying (often attributed to Keynes but as far as I can tell he never said) “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
It’s not been that long really. The dot com bubble was called a bubble for a while before it finally imploded. And just like now folks were in massive denial that it was a bubble.
One of the challenges here is that a lot of folks simply weren’t around then and haven’t seen what happens when everything implodes overnight. Those that have experienced it know what that looks like and know it will happen again.
What makes this time weird though is back then (and in most bubbles) the bubble was creating jobs - supposedly (I'm too young) anyone who could write a bit of HTML could get hired in the dot com boom.
Whereas this is a very weird bubble where it creates big pumps in some equity prices but apart from a tiny number of people who are directly involved in AI research etc. it's not created any jobs, in fact by creating uncertainty it's probably caused fewer jobs to be created.
What that means for labour market dynamics when it pops I really don't know
Bubbles don't pop overnight. In the aftermath of any collapse, you can generally see a pretty clear pattern of red flags (and attempts to minimize them or cover them up). Some parties notice earlier than others, but the realization is generally a much more gradual process than the collapse.
Its obvious its coming soon simply because the mismatch between hype and expectations is far too large now. Hype is necessary to lure in investment but now its reached its peak imo.
The question is, is it a big bang or a slow release?
> Has there ever been a period o time where people saw a bubble coming and that we were in one, but it just inexorably refused to pop/drug out this long?
The housing bubble that peaked in 2006 was raised as an issue at least as early as 2000 and became a big topic of conversation in mid-to-late 2002, which is comparable to if we had started talking about an AI bubble roughly simultaneously with the release of GPT-3 and it had become a topic of wide concern shortly after the release of GPT-3.5.
So, in short, not only “this long”, but much longer.
LLMs can be a massively transformative and valuable technology, and this would still be a bubble, there's no reason those two things can't be true at once.
In fact "pure" bubbles where the focus item is of literally no value (tulips, NFTs) are quite rare. Much more common are the bubbles based on an actual real transformative innovation (canals, railways, radio, internet, LLMs).
Railways did absolutely transform how travel worked in the UK, while simultaneously almost everyone who invested in them lost their shirts
I’m just over here trying to understand why or how you would do that to Gemini Live.
>Visual Context: On mobile, you can choose to share your camera feed or screen. This allows you to ask questions about what you are looking at in the real world or get help with tasks on your device.
>Common Use Cases
• Brainstorming: Talking through ideas for a project or event.
• Role-playing: Practicing for a job interview or a difficult conversation.
• Learning: Asking deep-dive questions about a complex topic while you're on the go.
• Daily Tasks: Getting help with things like gift ideas, travel itineraries, or summarizing information from your screen.
Don’t say US. They don’t speak for us all. Only 49.8% of voters. Of which I hope a significant portion have seen the error of their ways come midterms and the next election.
Every day is a new embarrassment law or action like this for America until then. I’ve never felt lower about America in my lifetime. The hope I had, the pride I felt in America, is gone, chunk by chunk, piece by piece, every day.
Why? I don't see this pedantry for headlines for other countries like China did this, the UK does that. I think it's well understood that it's referring to the government, not a generalization of its people.
My experience is the exact opposite. It is one of the most common points of pedantry I see in controversial political threads, across nations.
Not for no reason either. Turnout was 64.1%, so really it's the active decision of 31.9218% of voters (voting eligibles) culminating in this. Kind of a pattern with modern democracies if you check.
Not that passively endorsing this by not voting when the opportunity was there would be much better though.
I hate this line of reasoning. People who didn't vote are equally guilty, because they did not care enough to show up. Or, maybe, they just didn't make it to polling station on time for some reason (having to pick up kids from school, or working second shift or something). You should always assume that the result of the elections is representative of what society thinks. That's how elections (and opinion polls, for that matter) work. Unless you have a really good proof why some minority group was actively excluded from voting.
There is actually extensive mathematical history to fair voting, the output of which is super not in use, and of which I do find plenty of the alternative systems more representative:
Many people don’t vote because it is difficult for them, they don’t see a difference in their lives because they get screwed one way or the other no matter who is in power, and if you’ll recall the last administration was complicit in genocide which is why I voted third party.
It’s true trump is bad but so is genocide. Really hard to make the case of the lesser evil when it’s just variations on top tier criminality. You have to offer something to voters.
Yes many people don’t vote because of deliberately fettered access to polling and/or a generally correct understanding that the electoral college nullifies or makes redundant their vote in their jurisdiction. Your vote for a third party is a signal but essentially a qualified abstention. Your high horse however is so misguided and absurd- to suggest that you held a moral high ground because the Biden administration supported the Gaza genocide is flatly wrong. If you want to place blame for that administration’s actions, blame Citizen’s United, blame AIPAC, blame the DNC, etc. And write letters, protest, get mad. But facilitating the ascent of what is objectively, obviously, candidly worse to make that statement is insulting to the intelligence of anyone to whom you make the argument. Perhaps your vote was in a jurisdiction where you could assume the electoral votes would go to the Dems anyway, but that just makes it flat out virtue signaling. The left will continue to cut off its nose to spite its face to the peril of US democracy and world peace. You nailed em tho.
Voted in PA. I suspect that regardless of who is president next, from either party, US policy will be changing towards Israel. The right, because they are anti-Semitic, and the liberals, because they lost an election over genocide. If the only thing the establishment wants from us is our votes, well they're going to have to earn them. They have no qualms about being transactional with other folks. They just get mad that we're transactional with them because we're supposed to behave.
I'm not sure I'd use the word "guilty" - that suggests some wrong doing.
However I agree with your premise - trying to remove abstaining voters from the math is incorrect. Abstainers are explicitly making their view known.
That view is "I don't care, but are equally good or bad". (Which in turn demonstrates a profound ignorance of what's going on - and frankly folk that unconcerned should probably not pick a side.)
I believe it's fair to say "America voted for this". America is a democracy and the voters spoke. Of course it's not unanimous but majority rules.
And it's not like his campaign was disingenuous. The man was on display, and most of the things he's done were signaled clearly in the campaign. (He's long been against foreign wars, so the Iran debacle seems out of character, but then again it's in line with his dictator instincts, and he desperately needs a distraction from the Epstein files.)
Trump's exceptional, isn't he? He explicitly only governs for his base, and he's explicitly against those outside his base. Sure, he won a slim majority, but it's understood that democratically elected rulers govern all their citizens, if only to prevent electoral violence.
Everyone who sat out the 2016 and 2024 elections is responsible for this clown getting into office.
*Democracy is not a spectator sport*. You don't get to complain about corrupt politicians and then go on to make excuses about why you can't vote. You're wasting your citizenship. Either go vote or move to a dictatorship where voting isn't a concern.
I mean, I didn't vote for Trump, but I think it should be the US. This administration represents us on the global stage. You may not like it, and it may not feel fair, but we will all have to bear the consequences of their actions. Every day something like this happens--and is allowed to happen--is an embarrassment to all of us.
I voted against Trump 3 times. But people outside of the US should definitely act as if they cannot trust the US. Because they can't. I mean ffs we collectively elected him twice.
As someone outside the US I certainly feel this way.
The underlying point is that the American public voted for this. They saw his first term, a million people dead from covid, and thought to themselves "I want more of that guy". And if they can elect this person, what might the next one look like?
In one short year every country on earth has put the US in the "unreliable trade partner" box. (Even Canada. Canada!). That damage will last for decades. The big winner here? China. They're hoovering up goodwill all over the place.
Killing USAid not only killed a major purchaser of US farm surplus, it woke up a lot of grass-roots agencies to the need to diversify funding. Lots of soft-influence lost overnight, and it's not easily coming back.
> One species of Gulf whale is particularly vulnerable. Scientists estimate that only about 51 Rice's whales are left on Earth, all of them in waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which the Trump administration has termed the Gulf of America.
I don't think the animals that may go extinct care about the distinction.
This is a good point. Instead of saying “The US” they should make up a number <50% and put that in the headline. That way it would be confusing and patently untrue
reply