I think that interest is added, specifically you pay https://www.irs.gov/payments/quarterly-interest-rates based on the quarters you were missing taxes.
Not sure if the numbers quoted here include that already
It's because this article is garbage: of you watch the original German video what he says is
Yuki is ein junger, aufstrebender, vor allem der beste Japaner.
Which translates to
Yuki is a young rising star and the best Japanese driver.
Which reads more like referring to iwasa who is also in the RB juniors program.
The car is the same as last week.
You have to remember that this is a track that verstappen really doesn't like: last year's race at Singapore was also his worst.
Usually verstappen drives ~3 tenths faster than Perez, which, if he did that this week, would also put him up there....
IMO this is less of a case that the car is worse and more that verstappen isn't able to get 100% from his car.
24, always driven manual, EU.
From my experience most people in the EU can or at least could: This is because many (if not all, not sure) countries make a distinction between manual and automatic licenses (see e.g. https://www.learn-automatic.com/qualified/automatic-driving-licence/).
I.e. if you want to drive manual, you have to take the test manual, but if you take the test on manual transmission, you are allowed to drive automatics as well.
No, it's built into the protocol: think of it like as if every http request forces you to attach some tiny additional box containing the solution to a math puzzle.
The twist is that you want the math puzzle to be easy to create and verify, but hard to compute. The harder the puzzle you solve, the more you get prioritized by the service that sent you the puzzle.
If your puzzle is cheaper to create than hosting your service is, then it's much harder to ddos you since attackers get stuck at the puzzle, rather than getting to your expensive service
They are: their car is just a dog in the actual race. From a pure qualifying pace POV they are a lot better, with hulkenberg being able to get the car into q3 quite consistently.
That's also what makes them seem better than they really are: hulk qualifying in p8 (great) and then tumbles down to p16 by the end of the race (usually because they have to stop more often or at least to worse tires since their tire deg is abismal)
Standard lossless compression (without further assumptions) is already very close to being as optimal as it can get: At some point the pure entropy of these huge datasets just is not containable anymore.
The most likely savior in this case would be procedural rendering (i.e. instead of storing textures and meshes, you store a function that deterministically generates the meshes and textures). These already are starting to become popular due to better engine support, but pose a huge challenge from a design POV (the nice e.g. blender-esque interfaces don't really translate well to this kind of process).
It's a different paper (e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05294-9) from a different researcher (specifically Ranga Dias). This is not connected to the recent non-peer reviewed https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008
probably not: Spa is always great for the overtaker due to the long straight into and after eau rouge. McLaren is also running very strong wings which hurts their performance on the straights (but helps during e.g. rainy qualifyings....).
Realistically, if there is any chance of overtaking at all, Verstappen can overtake just due to less drag on the straights.
I hope that heads roll at haas for that disaster. There's one thing making wrong choices in high-stakes scenarios, but they sent out their drivers too late twice within 24h. That's just an unforced, unexplainable blunder. If I were gene haas I'd be furious: spend 100 MILLION dollars to develop a car and they don't even manage to get it around the track once.
This is doubly bad considering that sprints are one of their most reliable places to get points considering that their tire wear doesn't affect them too much over shorter distances.
They might as well pack up and go home now to conserve their parts since at this point there not going to achieve anything anyways.
It's $\mathbb{X}$ or unicode 𝕏 (U+1D54F)
Maybe he really likes metric spaces??
I mean it's very easy to side with SAGA and WGA considering he literally has no other option (all major studios are union).
They will make it open source, just tremendously complicated and expensive to comply with.
In general, if you see a group proposing regulations, it's usually to cement their own positions: e.g. openai is a frontrunner in ML for the masses, but doesn't really have a technical edge against anyone else, therefore they run to congress to "please regulate us".
Regulatory compliance is always expensive and difficult, which means it favors people that already have money and systems running right now.
There are so many ways this can be broken in intentional or unintentional ways. It's also a great way to detect possible e.g. government critics to shut them down (e.g. if you are Chinese and everything is uniquely tagged to you: would you write about Tiananmen square?), or to get monopolies on (dis)information.
This is not literally trying to force everyone to get a license for producing creative or factual work but it's very close since you can easily discriminate against any creative or factual sources you find unwanted.
In short, even if this is an absolutely flawless, perfect implementation of what they want to do, it will have catastrophic consequences.
I think you also have to keep in mind the position that de Vries and redbull is in:
- Redbull is looking for a second verstappen-level driver. That's always been the case not only for redbull, but all tier 1 teams: Their aspirations are championships, not points or even podiums.
- De Vries is a 28 year old rookie. That's usually the time that drivers retire or lean on their superior experience to make up for their loss in reaction speed and overall pace. The problem is that De Vries has no experience, while being older than Verstappen by close to three years. The fact that he got to race at all is a miracle: He would have to beat Tsunoda every week by quite a margin to become relevant for RedBull. If he doesn't become relevant for redbull, then why have him at alpha tauri?
Meanwhile they have a young driver in the form of tsunoda which exists in a limbo due to him having nothing to compare against: He could be the fastest driver on the planet in a trash car, or he could be underdelivering without anyone noticing due to the lack of comparison.
This is bad for two reasons:
- you don't know whether tsunoda is an option for redbull
- you have no idea how good alpha tauri is over all, which is doubly bad considering that they want to make major changes to how alpha tauri operates.
On the other hand, you have a perfectly good Ricciardo sitting on his hands that performed really well at silverstone. Realistically, you aren't going to lose anything from having Riccardo drive the rest of the season compared to having de Vries drive, but you have to potential upside of more context to the quality of tsunoda and the team, which you wouldn't get otherwise.
In general I'm more suprised that they ever gave De Vries a chance considering his age and the context to his big achievements:
In formula 2 his stiffest competitor was Nicholas Latifi (He won with 266 vs Latifi's 214 points) in what can be described as a dud year after the majority of now F1 mainstays had already graduated (he also needed 3 years to win F2, which is never a good sign).
If you have ever seen an formula E race, you will notice that it is quite a chaotic crash-fest with very weird rules and other nonsense. Just not crashing and not driving to quickly can get you really far by surviving the carbon-fiber mayhems and fuel-conservation issues.
To put it into perspective, here are the race records in the year that De Vries won formula E [1st, 9th, retired, retired, 1st, 16th, retired, 9th, retired, 13th, 18th, 2nd, 2nd, 22nd, 8th] or, in short if we ignore all DNFs we get a mean position of 9th!
In short, there's a reason why Mercedes never even tried to get him an F1 spot: He's not a bad driver, but being "not a bad driver" is insufficient for a top team like mercedes and redbull. There's little incentive to put him into any car, even less so nowadays considering his age.
Everything using the activityPub standard has open likes (see https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-activitypub-20180123/ for the standard), and logically it makes sense to do this to allow for verification of "likes":
If you did not do that, a malicious instance could much more easily just shove a bunch of likes onto another instance's post, while, if you have "like authors" it's much easier to do like moderation.
Effectively ActivityPub treats all interactions like comments, where you have a "from" and "to" field just like email does (just imagine you could send messages without having an originator: email would have unusable levels of spam and harassment).
Specfically, here is an example of a simple activity:
POST /outbox/ HTTP/1.1
Host: dustycloud.org
Authorization: Bearer XXXXXXXXXXX
Content-Type: application/ld+json; profile="https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams"
{
"@context": ["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
{"@language": "en"}],
"type": "Like",
"actor": "https://dustycloud.org/chris/",
"name": "Chris liked 'Minimal ActivityPub update client'",
"object": "https://rhiaro.co.uk/2016/05/minimal-activitypub",
"to": ["https://rhiaro.co.uk/#amy",
"https://dustycloud.org/followers",
"https://rhiaro.co.uk/followers/"],
"cc": "https://e14n.com/evan"
}
As you can see this has a very "email like" structure with a sender, receiver, and content. The difference is mostly that you can also publish a "type" that allows for more complex interactions (e.g. if type is comment, then lemmy knows to put it into the comments, if type is like it knows to put it to the likes, etc...).
The actual protocol is a little more complex, but if you replace "ActivityPub" with "typed email" you are correct 99% of the time.
The different services, like lemmy, kbin, mastodon, or peertube are now just specific instantiations of this standard. E.g. a "like" might have slightly different effects on different services (hence also the confusion with "boosting" vs "liking" on kbin)
At this point it's in you if you believe this grifter.
It really depends on what you want: I really like obsidian which is cross-platform and uses basically vanilla markdown which makes it easy to switch should this project go down in flames (there are also plugins that add additional syntax which may not be portable, but that's as expected).
There's also logseq which has much more bespoke syntax (major extensions to markdown), but is also OSS meaning there's no real danger of it suddenly vanishing from one day to the next.
Specifically Logseq is much heavier than obsidian both in the app itself and the features it adds to markdown, while obsidian is much more "markdown++" with a significant part of the "++" coming from plugins.
In my experience logseq is really nice for short-term note taking (e.g. lists, reminders, etc) and obsidian is much nicer for long-term notes.
Some people also like notion, but i never got into that: it requires much more structure ahead of time and is very locked down (it also obviously isn't self-hosted). I can see notion being really nice for people that want less general note-taking and more custom "forms" to fill out (e.g. traveling checklists, production planning, etc..).
Personally, I would always go with obsidian, just for the piece of mind that the markdown plays well with other markdown editors which is important for me if I want a long-running knowledge base.
Unfortunately I cannot tell you anything with regards to collaboration since I do not use that feature in any note-taking system
Should have been done a long time ago. Even adding and removing gravel traps where they currently have the blue concrete should be within the realms of possibility for an F1 gp if they want both F1 and MotoGP (consider that places like Baku literally pave their historical cobblestone and then un-pave it after the gp)
For example, if you had an 8-bit integer represented by a bunch of qbits in a superposition of states, it would have every possible value from 0-256 and could be computed with as though it were every possible value at once until it is observed, the probability wave collapses, and a finite value emerges. Is this not the case?
Not really, or at least it's not a good way of thinking about it. Imagine it more like rigging coin tosses: You don't have every single configuration at the same time, but rather you have a joint probability over all bits which get altered to produce certain useful distributions.
To get something out, you then make a measurement that returns the correct result with a certain probability (i.e. it's a probabilistic turing machine rather than a nondeterministic one).
This can be very useful since sampling from a distribution can sometimes be much nicer than actually solving a problem (e.g. you replace a solver with a simulator of the output).
In traditional computing this can also be done but that gives you the fundamental problem of sampling from very complex probability distributions which involves approximating usually intractable integrals.
However, there are also massive limitations to the type of things a quantum computer can model in this way since quantum theory is inherently linear (i.e. no climate modelling regardless of how often people claim they want to do it).
There's also the question of how many things exist where it is more efficient to build such a distribution and sample from it, rather than having a direct solver.
If you look at the classic quantum algorithms (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_algorithm), you can see that there aren't really that many algorithms out there (this is of course not an exhaustive list but it gives a pretty good overview) where it makes sense to use quantum computing and pretty much all of them are asymptotically barely faster or the same speed as classical ones and most of them rely on the fact that the problem you are looking at is a black-box one.
Remember that one of the largest useful problems that was ever solved on a quantum computer up until now was factoring the number 21 with a specialised version of Shor's algorithm that only works for that number (since the full shor would need many orders of magnitude more qbits than exist on the entire planet).
There's also the problem of logical vs physical qbits: In computer science we like to work with "perfect" qbits that are mathematically ideal, i.e. are completely noise free. However, physical qbits are really fragile and attenuate to pretty much anything and everything, which adds a lot of noise into the system. This problem also gets worse the larger you scale your system.
The latter is a fundamental problem: the entire clue of quantum computers is that you can combine random states to "virtually" build a complex distribution before you sample from it. This can be much faster since the virtual model can look dependencies that are intractable to work with on a classical system, but that dependency monster also means that any noise in the system is going to negatively affect everything else as you scale up to more qbits.
That's why people expect real quantum computers to have many orders of magnitude more qbits than you would theoretically need.
It also means that you cannot trivially scale up a physical quantum algorithm: Physical grovers on a list with 10 entries might look very different than a physical grover with 11 entries.
This makes quantum computing a nonstarter for many problems where you cannot pay the time it takes to engineer a custom solution.
And even worse: you cannot even test whether your fancy new algorithm works in a simulator, since the stuff you are trying to simulate is specifically the intractable quantum noise (something which, ironically, a quantum computer is excellent at simulating).
In general you should be really careful when looking at quantum computing articles, since it's very easy to build some weird distribution that is basically impossible for a normal computer to work with, but that doesn't mean it's something practical e.g. just starting the quantum computer, "boop" one bit, then waiting for 3ns will give you a quantum noise distribution that is intractable to simulate with a computer (same thing is true if you don't do anything with a computer: there's literal research teams of top scientists whose job boils down to "what are quantum computers computing if we don't give them instructions").
Meanwhile, the progress of classical or e.g. hybrid analog computing is much faster than that of quantum computing, which means that the only people really deeply invested into quantum computing are the ones that cannot afford to miss, just in case there is in fact something:
- finance
- defence
- security
- ....
I can just go to the search tab and look for the magazine (e.g. Search for retro gaming) and find an the other instances.
I think s fair number of people forget to switch the search to magazines before looking (or are actually subscribing to other instances but don't notice it)