Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youā€™ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutā€™nā€™paste it into its own post ā€” thereā€™s no quota for posting and the bar really isnā€™t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many ā€œesotericā€ right wing freaks, but thereā€™s no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iā€™m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged ā€œculture criticsā€ who write about everything but understand nothing. Iā€™m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyā€™re inescapable at this point, yet I donā€™t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnā€™t be surgeons because they didnā€™t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canā€™t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this.)

  • blakestacey@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    Ā·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    ā€œQuantum computation happens in parallel worlds simultaneouslyā€ is a lazy take trotted out by people who want to believe in parallel worlds. It is a bad mental image, because it gives the misleading impression that a quantum computer could speed up anything. But all the indications from the actual math are that quantum computers would be better at some tasks than at others. (If you want to use the names that CS people have invented for complexity classes, this imagery would lead you to think that quantum computers could whack any problem in EXPSPACE. But the actual complexity class for ā€œproblems efficiently solvable on a quantum computerā€, BQP, is known to be contained in PSPACE, which is strictly smaller than EXPSPACE.) It also completely obscures the very important point that some tasks look like theyā€™d need a quantum computer ā€” the program is written in quantum circuit language and all that ā€” but a classical computer can actually do the job efficiently. Accepting the goofy pop-science/science-fiction imagery as truth would mean youā€™d never imagine the Gottesmanā€“Knill theorem could be true.

    To quote a paper by Andy Steane, one of the early contributors to quantum error correction:

    The answer to the question ā€˜where does a quantum computer manage to perform its amazing computations?ā€™ is, we conclude, ā€˜in the region of spacetime occupied by the quantum computerā€™.

    • Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      Ā·
      7 days ago

      Tangentially, I know about nothing of quantum mechanics but lately Iā€™ve been very annoyed alone in my head at (the popular perception of?) many-world theory in general. From what Iā€™m understanding about it, there are two possibilities: either itā€™s pure metaphysics, in which case who cares? or itā€™s a truism, i.e. if we model things that way that makes it so we can talk about reality in this way. Thisā€¦ might be true of all quantum interpretations, but many-world annoys me more because itā€™s such a literal vision trying to be cool.

      I donā€™t know, tell me if Iā€™m off the mark!

      • blakestacey@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        Ā·
        7 days ago

        Thereā€™s a whole lot of assuming-the-conclusion in advocacy for many-worlds interpretations ā€” sometimes from philosophers, and all the time from Yuddites online. If you make a whole bunch of tacit assumptions, starting with those about how mathematics relates to physical reality, you end up in MWI country. And if you make sure your assumptions stay tacit, you can act like an MWI is the only answer, and everyone else is being un-mutual irrational.

        (I use the plural interpretations here because thereā€™s not just one flavor of MWIce cream. The people who take it seriously have been arguing amongst one another about how to make it work for half a century now. What does it mean for one event to be more probable than another if all events always happen? When is one ā€œworldā€ distinct from another? The arguments iterate like the construction of a fractal curve.)

      • aio@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        Ā·
        7 days ago

        Unfortunately ā€œstates of quantum systems form a vector space, and states are often usefully described as linear combinations of other statesā€ doesnā€™t make for good science fiction compared to ā€œwhoa dude, like, the multiverse, man.ā€