QR shills are the scourings of the cult's ergastulas.
Take them to Dr Jeremy Shapiro in Encino CA for puberty blockers?
God bless you and keep you from harm, this day and forever.
Australian scientists have compared an ancient Greek technique of memorizing data to an even older technique from Aboriginal culture, using students in a rural medical school.
The study found that students using a technique called memory palace in which students memorized facts by placinthem into a memory blueprint of the childhood home, allowing them to revisit certain rooms to recapture that data. Another group of students were taught a technique developed by Australian Aboriginal people over more than 50,000 years of living in a custodial relationship with the Australian land.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-ancient-australian-aboriginal-memory-tool.html
Scientists believe that individual light particles, or photons, are ideally suited for sending quantum information. Encoded with quantum data, they could literally transfer information at the speed of light. However, while photons would make for great carriers because of their speed, they don't like to interact with each other, making it difficult to achieve quantum entanglement.
An international research team from NUST MISIS, Russian Quantum Center, the Ioffe Institute St. Petersburg and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology has obtained experimental evidence for effective interaction between microwave photons via superconductive qubits for the first time. The study, published in npj Quantum Materials, may be a step toward the implementation of a long-living quantum memory and the development of commercial quantum devices.
In their experiments, the researchers used photons with the frequency of a few GHz and the wavelength of a few centimeters.
"We used superconducting cubits, which are basically artificial atoms, because they have been proven to strongly interact with light. Interaction between natural atoms and natural light is weak due to the small size of natural atoms. Superconducting cubits are man-built; their size can reach up to 0.1 mm, which makes it possible to significantly increase their dipole moment and polarity, engineering strong interaction between light and matter," said Prof. Alexey Ustinov, head of the Laboratory for Superconducting Metamaterials at NUST MISIS and Group Head at Russian Quantum Center, who co-authored the study.
Superconducting qubits represent a leading qubit modality that is currently being pursued by industry and academia for quantum computing applications. However, they require milli-Kelvin (mK) temperatures to operate. The most powerful of the existing superconducting quantum devices contains under 100 qubits. As you add qubits, the number of operations a quantum computer can perform grows exponentially, but the maximum number of qubits that can be integrated in a quantum computer is limited by the size of refrigerators used to cool them down to operational temperatures.
Taking this into account, the efforts of the scientific community have been recently focused on increasing the processing power of a quantum computer by transmitting quantum signals from one refrigerator to another. To engineer this transmission, the scientists coupled an array of eight superconducting transmon qubits to a common waveguide—a structure that guides waves, e.g., light waves.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-scientists-photons-interact-long-living-quantum.html
First of all, it’s important to note that not all narrowly superhuman models are going to be equally interesting as alignment case studies. AlphaGoZero (AGZ) is narrowly superhuman in an extremely strong sense: it not only makes Go moves better than the moves made by top human players, but also probably makes moves that top players couldn’t even reliably recognize as good. But there isn’t really an outer alignment problem for Go: a precise, algorithmically-generated training signal (the win/loss signal) is capable of eliciting the “full Go-playing potential” of AGZ given enough training (although at a certain scale inner alignment issues may crop up). I think we should be focusing on cases where both inner and outer alignment are live issues.
The case studies which seem interesting are models which have the potential to be superhuman at a task (like “giving health advice”) for which we have no simple algorithmic-generated or hard-coded training signal that’s adequate (which I’ll call “fuzzy tasks”). The natural thing to do is to try to train the model on a fuzzy task using human demonstrations or human feedback – but if (like AGZ) the model actually has the capacity to improve on what humans can demonstrate or even reliably recognize, it’s not immediately obvious how to elicit its “full potential.”
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PZtsoaoSLpKjjbMqM/the-case-for-aligning-narrowly-superhuman-models
There are a number of highly speculative 'channelings' by new age types selling self published books on the subject.
whether we find these credible depends on our prior information inputs
this is an information war. The objective of IW is to manipulate our emotional state for the purpose of inducing beliefs that will change our behavior.
How does believing in "12 strand DNA' activation change our behavior?
How does arguing about masks, viruses and vaccines in the absence of credible information help cultists?
heh
These trackers may safely be removed from your link.
>ff_source=Email&ff_medium=the-gateway-pundit&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=daily
The Very Serious covid spokespeople spouting bullshit like "no evidence of human-to-human transmission" are doing a sort of naive equivocation version of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", by saying "no evidence for" as if that implies "evidence against" when in fact they're trying to support some agenda or worldview when there's not very much clear evidence in any direction and someone could just as easily say "there's no evidence there isn't human-to-human transmission". At least, that's in the best case. Sometimes the evidence does favor a particular direction, they just don't like it and don't want to count it. Desperately clinging to priors?
Hm.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rYRAQGxky2MLEqsGd/there-is-no-no-evidence
"I would shill the Sun itself if it insulted me."
- Cap'n Ahab
Moby Dick
On February 12, 2021, a little more than a year from its launch, the European Space Agency and NASA's Solar Orbiter caught sight of this coronal mass ejection, or CME. This view is from the mission's SoloHI instrument—short for Solar Orbiter Heliospheric Imager—which watches the solar wind, dust, and cosmic rays that fill the space between the sun and the planets.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-space-instrument-captures-solar-eruption.html
SPRITES
We are all familiar with the bolts of lightning that accompany heavy storms. While these flashes originate in storm clouds and strike downwards, a much more elusive type forms higher up in the atmosphere and shoots up towards space. So, what are the chances of somebody taking photographs of these rarely seen, brief 'transient luminous events' at the exact same time as a satellite orbits directly above with the event leaving its signature in the satellite's data?
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-curious-incident-swarm-sprites-night-time.html
For the last few years, a large part of my research motivation has been directed at trying to save the concept of time—save it, for example, from all the weird causal loops created by decision theory problems. This post will hopefully explain why I care so much about time, and what I think needs to be fixed.
Why Time?
My best attempt at a short description of time is that time is causality. For example, in a Pearlian Bayes net, you draw edges from earlier nodes to later nodes. To the extent that we want to think about causality, then, we will need to understand time.
Importantly, time is the substrate in which learning and commitments take place. When agents learn, they learn over time. The passage of time is like a ritual in which opportunities are destroyed and knowledge is created. And I think that many models of learning are subtly confused, because they are based on confused notions of time.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gEKHX8WKrXGM4roRC/saving-time