Thats just 14h tho, not too bad.

Microsoft has and will continue to do Trumps bidding when it comes to the ICC, so this is a very good but also very late decision.

If “video of someone roughly looking like you” is enough to completely reverse the burden of proof, then you can throw the whole justice system out of the window.

Dont know a fix to the stutter, but cant you make individual applications run through X11 while using wayland. Xwayland is what its called i think. Maybe worth a try.

Its really not on that trajectory tho. Huge inflated numbers of nonfunctional physical qubits are just a way to get funding. Its like AI bros boasting about how much data their LLM model sucked in. The number of usable qubits hasnt changed at all basically. They are still in the stage of figuring out how it even works. Compared to traditional computers, they are at the stage of trying to invent the transistor. Yes in 20-30 years it will maybe be useful, but only if they dont hit physical limitations that prevent scaling. And then the question is FOR WHAT? Dead people cant make use of quantum computers and dead people is what we will be if we dont figure out solutions to some much more imminent, catastrophic problems in the next 10 years.

As you said, this research isnt functional. The TLDR of all of the following is that to my understanding the record holding quantum computer currently has 4 (four) qubits.

##################################################

From the original source (caltech)

Looking ahead, the researchers plan to link the qubits in their array together in a state of entanglement, where particles become correlated and behave as one. Entanglement is a necessary step for quantum computers to move beyond simply storing information in superposition; entanglement will allow them to begin carrying out full quantum computations.

So yeah, they arent at the step where they can actually do anything with the qubits they created. 6100 physical qubits also doesnt equal 6100 logical qubits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_and_logical_qubits

Since the development of the first quantum computer in 1998, most technologies used to implement qubits face issues of stability, decoherence,[6][7] fault tolerance[8][9] and scalability.[6][9][10] Because of this, many physical qubits are needed for the purposes of error-correction to produce an entity which behaves logically as a single qubit would in a quantum circuit or algorithm; this is the subject of quantum error correction.

Im a total non expert on quantum things, but from the looks of it, the most efficient systems (at Microsoft) still need many times the amount of physical to create a single logical qubit.

The team used quantum error correction techniques developed by Microsoft and Quantinuum’s trapped ion hardware to use 30 physical qubits to form four logical qubits.

Its also impossible to read up on this stuff, because lots of research for “quantum computers” actually just algorithmically simulates the logical qubits on standard non quantum hardware. So if you search just for “largest logical qubit system” you get lots of garbage and searching for physical qubits gives you research like this 6,100 number that cant be converted into a realistic number of logical qubits, because the overhead needed for error correction varies drastically between techniques.

What you really wanna know is the largest set of functional logical qubits that actually relies on physical qubits. And the answer to that seems to be 4. Whats needed to break RSA-2048 is probably multiple thousands of those stable, error free logical qubits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantinuum#H-Series

The company also holds the record for two-qubit gate fidelity, becoming the first to reach 99.9%. Microsoft and Quantinuum created four logical qubits on the H2 quantum computer, running 14,000 experiments without a single error.

Its 2025 and to my knowledge we have a total of zero quantum computers that can even do basic first grade math.

I find the “AI” part undescriptive too. Its mostly just a fronted for a bunch of LLM APIs right? If you want to target idiots then use “AI” in the name, if you want to target IT people use “LLM”.

AI/LLM Center? Multi AI/LLM?

The name sounds like an AI version of PornHub to me.

No, its mostly because 99% of people dont build their own computers and because 99% of prebuilts/laptops come with Windows preinstalled. Thats literally the only reason. If all devices came with Linux preinstalled, most people would be too lazy to switch and buy a windows license. This would change the market share of Linux which would immediately cause companies to prioritize making their software run on linux. Its really just corporate inertia.

Hello, my name is Jack Wallen, and I’m a glutton for punishment.

Bro really wants us to know hes been a bad boy 😭

This article would have been perfect if not for the end. What was missing here was the hard numbers, that we have known for years, which show that the vast majority of child abuse happens inside families and not at all on or through the internet. There are no digital traces for most CSA so you will never be able to effectively fight this if you focus mainly on digital traces.

The challenge now is finding a way to bridge this discrepancy between the privacy and security we deserve with the data usability that law enforcement requires.

When the author is like “hmm but what could we possibly do instead of spying on everyone” they fail in their mission to give readers a realistic view of the situation. The only real solution to this problem is not of technical or digital nature, but of the social and personal kind. Teachers, doctors, caretakers need to be trained to notice patterns that emerge from sexual abuse, not just in children but adults as well, so they can give people the help they need or alert authorities if necessary.

I mostly agree with everything you said, but

The vast majority of people can afford food

that might still be true now, but not for long. Unless something drastically changes the US is heading for a complete market crash. Without government intervention in the food industry, people will either starve or steal. If people keep stealing en mass then the store closes and then it gets very serious very quickly.

If almost nobody is following laws, then thats anarchy in my book. Im not saying that its immoral or bad for people to steal under these circumstances but that doesnt change the fact that its anarchy from a societal standpoint. Even if the state and its laws still exist, the outcome is the same as if they didnt.

People stealing from Walmart would fall under the “anarchy” part i would say. The last quote even says stealing specifically.

Lots of versions but yeah mostly its “nine” https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/05/02/nine-meals/
I would argue that its less than 9 for people that have never actually experienced true hunger however.

• 1896: The only barrier between us and anarchy is the last nine meals we’ve had. (Alfred Henry Lewis)
• 1906: There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy. (Alfred Henry Lewis)
• 1911: Only nine meals stood between civilization and anarchy. (Anonymous)
• 1916: Only about seven meals stand between a man and anarchy. (Anonymous)
• 1932: We are never more than nine meals away from anarchy. (John J. Fitzgerald)
• 1942: There are only nine meals between man and revolution. (Anonymous)
• 1946: No one is more than nine meals away from murder. (Theo. G. Lurman Jr.)
• 1947: Every man is only nine meals away from Communism. (Leland L. Sage)
• 1974: No man was ever more than about nine meals away from crime or suicide. (Eric Sevareid)
• 1977: No country is more than three meals away from a revolution. (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle)
• 1980: You’re only nine meals away from being a criminal. (Anonymous prison inmate)
• 1980: Each of us is only nine meals away from stealing. (Robert L. Eddy)

Some raspberry zero + a raspi cam module? Should be the most flexible solution. Maybe too much work though, idk what your actual requirements are.

They have a page about that: https://watchy.sqfmi.com/docs/battery-life

With only time keeping, Watchy should have a battery life of 5-7 days, while with fetching data over WiFi, it should last between 2-3 days. These numbers can be extended through further optimizations (e.g. sleep during off hours, waking up only on motion/tilt, etc.).

By default it wakes up the CPU and updates the display every 60 seconds, but you could totally change this to make it only update on demand (the most efficient would be by button press) which should extend the battery life waaay beyond 7 days.

I havent used it yet, so cant really say much, but ive been looking at watchy. https://watchy.sqfmi.com/

ESP32 based with a epaper display

That seems like something that wouldnt hold up in court if tested. If you make money with it, thats a different issue (Wettbewerbsverbot), but if you publish free and open source, then this wouldnt fall under that to my understanding.