It will be very difficult for someone over the internet to help you troubleshoot without some type of schematic of what you’re trying to accomplish.

Oops my bad, it’s been a while. I thought the Hamiltonian used quaternions, but I guess that’s just complex numbers.

You think one imaginary number is crazy? Just wait till you learn about quaternions. One real number and 3 imaginary numbers forming a four dimensional coordinate system. It’s the basis for quantum mechanics and most video game engines. Who thinks of this shit?

This is the way.

Command statement = an action

Question statement = a status

It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.

The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.

An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).

You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.

Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.

The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.

Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).

I think plasma isn’t a chemical since the elements can’t form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren’t chemicals.

Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.

I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.

What is the easiest way to look that information up?

I heard a hypothesis that the first human made consciousness will be an AI algorithm designed to monitor and coordinate other AI algorithms which makes a lot of sense to me.

Our consciousness is just the monitoring system of all our bodies subsystems. It is most certainly an emergent phenomenon of the interaction and management of different functions competing or coordinating for resources within the body.

To me it seems very likely that the first human made consciousness will not be designed to be conscious. It also seems likely that we won’t be aware of the first consciousnesses because we won’t be looking for it. Consciousness won’t be the goal of the development that makes it possible.

Thanos’ plan was so fucking stupid. He wanted to eliminate half of the population to reduce the lack of resources. This completely ignores how populations grow exponentially and will be back to the original quantity in a generation or two… His plan kills half the population while not actually fixing the resource problem.

Should have just snapped his fingers for unlimited resources. What a dum dum.

Can someone provide a summary on what this means? I thought there were malicious exploits in this. Why is it back up and the perpetrator unbanned?

It will be rejected because Israel justifiably does not want Hamas to exist.

Israel will also use this to unjustifiably reject it to proceed with a genocide on civilians not affiliated with Hamas.

Hold up, what?

(Also, Samsung makes their own chips.)

Example holds up better with Google (for Pixel line).

I agree that planting trees is generally good, but doing so can’t sequester the amount of carbon released by humans since the start of the industrial revolution. We need other avenues to do that. If we returned forests back to how they were 100,000 years ago (untouched by modern humans) the new trees that would grow wouldn’t be able to soak up the CO2 released. Returning the forests to that state with the current world population isn’t feasible either as we need some of that land for agriculture.

I get your sentiment, but we’re beyond a ‘plant trees’ solution.

Semiconductors are used for transistors because they give us the ability to electrically control whether they conduct or resist electrical current. I don’t know what mechanism you’d use to do that with superconductors. I agree you don’t ‘have’ to have resistance in order to achieve this functionality, but at this time semiconductors or mechanical relays are the only ways we have to do that. My focus is not in semiconductor / IC design either so I may by way off base, but I don’t know of a mechanism that would allow superconductors to function as transistors (or “electrically controlled electrical connections”), but I really hope I’m wrong!

Really appreciate the write up! I didn’t know the computing power required!

Another stupid question (if you don’t mind) - adding superconductors to GPUs doesn’t really se like it would make a huge difference on the heat generation. Sure, some of the heat generated is through trace resistance, but the overwhelming majority is the switching losses of the transistors which will not be effected by superconductor technology. Are we assuming these superconductors will be able to replace semiconductors too? Where are these CPU/GPU efficiencies coming from?