it has six hours half-life. In 24 hours, only 6% remain and in 48 hours 0,4%

normal computer have to try every combination one at a time (or per number of cores).
Quantum computer can try all of them at once.
It’s very useful if you have a lot of combinations to try, like trying what molecule works best as a treatment for X.
It isnt very useful in task, like if X then Y. Or keep track of Z.
So basically, it wouldn’t enhance your smartphone in any other way, but in use cases where you have lot of combinations, it’s light years ahead of any other computer

interesting, never thought that people don’t need pharmacy products whole year round.
In grocery, it is maybe +10% of normal month, nothing too exciting

what kind of retail, may I ask?

that would be great!

automation is here for decades and helping manufacturing tremendously, but so far research is taking more manpower to achieve breakthroughs even despite the automation

idk, all the protests looks localized and die off pretty fast.
Meanwhile, power got a lot more centralized in the last year, so I would say, state has become stronger than it was. Not really a good thing, but I don’t see China anywhere near the collapse

that’s true, but we already see rapidly increasing manpower and time requirements as well. It’s a question of economy how long can we keep up with ever increasing requirements, as there is not unlimited number of people on earth

it’s happening right now.
In the past, one genius was able to deliver several breakthroughs
now, if you don’t pour billions into something, there is almost no chance you achieve something big. Individual means nothing, thousands of people working in teams are needed to make any breakthrough possible.
And that is just the beginning. This was until now. Now it seems, that you not only need thousands of bright minds to get the breakthrough, but also decades of research. Like self driving cars that were announced 2005-2010 with huge investments from multiple companies, but it seems it will become reality in ~2030. Meanwhile, iPhone development started around 2002 and in 2010 smartphones were everywhere.
AI will also be the next big thing, but it’s also gonna be decades and billions before anything useful comes out of it.
We are only experiencing todays breakthroughs because billions are invested into the tech.
There will soon be a patent problems - if it took few years and few millions to develop new technology, nobody cares that you were copied two years later, as headstart was enough to get a good payoff. But if new technology takes decades of trial and error and billions of dollars, and after that you are copied in two years, investors will be hesitant to invest into long term projects

solar windows is tried and failed project
It’s more expensive, it’s much less effective and it blocks much more sun than it generates electricity, pissing off everyone inside.
Sure, you can do it more transparent, but in that case, it generates even less electricity.

IMHO rooftop panels is all we need

well, changing weights are basically rewriting the logic of an AI, so it could be defined as rewriting its code.
The problem is, once continuous learning becomes mainstream (same way as people learn and memorize things, events, places, processes etc. their whole lives), rewriting the logic basically becomes the point.
It is a valid question, though the hard part of the question is the definition of its code.
In human brain, every memory is a “code”, because every memory slightly alters the behavior of a human.
Should we limit the AI to pre-trained stuff and drop every new knowledge ASAP (like ChatGDP now, where if you point out its mistake, it will remember, but just for this session, as it will only use it as an input, not re-train itself), or should we allow continuous learning?

in almost all the countries if you brought this up to court, you would get laughed at all the way there and back and probably the rest of your life.

Don’t know what it means, either that in US you could be sued for anything, which is bad because no common sense and it only serves the lawyers who can make a lot of it, or that it’s great system that takes every matter seriously. Pick your choice

thanks!

may I ask, is there a lot of dark matter in our solar system, or anywhere near, so we can study it up close in the coming decades or centuries?

to understand why it is this way, we have to look at psychology as well as geopolitics.
First, after second world war, US was an industrial powerhouse. Asia didn’t have the know how or technology to produce almost anything and Europe was starting to rebuild itself. Later, Europe did start its own manufacturing at scale, but it wasn’t any cheaper than US, so the US maintained a lot of the industry, making its citizens very wealthy even in factory lines jobs.
China started to gain traction in 80s, but it wasn’t until 00s when they basically could manufacture anything cheaper than US, basically destroying expensive US products. Of course, US had better marketing, better quality control, better management skills and much much better IT, so they kept making high-end goods, but middle class and not-so-smart people certainly had it worse.
Also, people like scapegoats. People don’t like being told you have to work harder to have a good life, it’s much easier to blame someone. For 40 years, it was USSR and communists. But after it’s dissolution, Russia was too weak to be seen as “the cause” of all the troubles. Mexico didn’t cut it either, though took some blame. China, as a rising global star, was the perfect candidate for the blame game. Can’t find work? It’s not because you lack skills, it’s because China took your work. Any other domestic problem? China! Politicians love that, because it can blame shift from domestic issues (better education for more high end jobs etc.) to some common evil they have to fight. They can make strong gestures and they win votes, instead of fixing shit.
So both political parties are pushing anti-China propaganda for three decades now and will happily continue. Even better, Chinese governments ain’t no saints and China does have its own problems, which are very easy to point out, while skipping over any good things they do.

well, if you want radioactive lakes, we can start mining and export it to your backyard. It’s OK, right?
And no, it’s not piles of inert stone that is naturally occurring. It’s heavily radioactive waste lakes that occur by processing uranium and it emits orders of magnitude more radiation. Comparing it to cell phones is just a joke - go ahead and take a walk near any of that lake, it’s just a radiation, right? no big deal. It’s like comparing someone bumping into you while walking to car going 300km/h hitting you. It’s the same, right? Both is just a touch.
And why do you thing I am smug? I am grateful that mining of uranium didn’t happen here and I wish everybody had a government like this. I do not support toxic mining and toxic waste anywhere, nor do I support exporting our shit elsewhere. Just because there are some problem (waste export) I should be OK with any other problem (radioactive lakes)?
and to your last question: yes, this radiation is much higher and are harmful to anyone getting close. It’s not nearly levels of anything naturally occuring. It is considered safe because it is contained within area and do not leak to places where people live. But it remains radioactive and is closed to public basically forever.
edit: I can’t comment about all types of mining - depending on where the ore is located different processes are used. In here, company that asked for permits stated that the area will be closed even long after they stop mining. There were protests and city didn’t grant the permission

well, by your logic, Chernobyl was great, because radioactive deaths of animals doesn’t matter (because more gets born) and it’s positive environment because there are no people.
By that logic, let’s start nuclear war, it would be best for environment.

And who said it’s OK to send waste to poor countries? I didn’t for sure. I am against uranium mining and against open burning toxic waste.

Mining of minerals can be done environmentally friendly and without any abuse or long term damage. Of course, many times it isn’t. But that’s political and economical problem, not something that can’t be overcome. You can mine those and you can do it sustainably. You can’t mine uranium without radioactive lakes

permanent harm to the area? All I found is that main concern in lithium mining is that it needs a lot of water and that’s all

yeah, for Lithium, main concern is water usage.
Seems like excessive water usage is better than radioactive pond for decades, or is it not?
and as for the cobalt, there does not seems to be any environmental problems mining cobalt at all?
Yes, workers are treated poorly, but that has nothing to do with what type of mineral is mined. That’s more of an political issue, rather than destroying nature for centuries, which is clearly an environmental issue

well, one doesn’t destroy environment for hundreds of years

it is even in your source,, though conveniently skipped:
“Mill tailings and raffinates are stored in specially designed ponds called impoundments. The tailings remain radioactive and contain hazardous chemicals from the recovery process.”
we have one of the largest untapped uranium deposits in Europe about 20km out of my city - while it would pose no danger to the city, thanks to modern containment methods; we could no longer go hiking to the nature anywhere near the site, since there will be radioactive ponds that remains radioactive for a long time. That’s why no mining started and it won’t start. We are luckily from EU country, where corporations can’t waste human lives and nature absolutely disregarding any human or nature needs, but it’s not like that everywhere and in many places, when there is an ore, that location gets closed off and people just won’t go there for hundreds of years. It’s an electricity for rich (poor countries don’t have nuclear reactors) in exchange for poor man’s land.
After mining other types of ore, country can be revitalized, since it’s not radioactive. That’s not true for uranium.

well, what nobody talks about, is utter nature destruction for hundreds of years if not more when mining uranium. And since it is a field you need to destroy more of the nature every year