hetscop

Having a single player control most of the market - like meta - means that they will have a lot of sway over how the protocol is developed. This is propably a bad thing since meta har different goals than people currently using the fediverse and also have financial incentives to get people to move over to their platforms instead.

I feel like instagram is one one of those apps - at least the way I use it - that relies on a lot of your irl friends having it as well. I would love for them to be open to signing up to some fediverse platform but we're not there right now sadly.

Lemmy is the most reddit like experience if that's what you're after, but I'd reccomend getting a couple different accounts, browsing around and seeing what works and then settling on what's most fun

Right now fediverse is mostly made up of techy people - which is fine! But there are many other kinds of people you might potentially want to interact with online. Threads could bring in normies and celebs to the metaverse. Normies are a mixed bag - this includes your racist uncle but also your really cool and funny friend who can't be bothered to set up a mastodon account. Celebs are a source of real world influence (I'm including politicians and journalists for example in this category) which is obviously attractive. I'm gonna miss cyberbullying local politicians on twitter, and it would be nice to be able to continue doing so through the comfort of e.g. kbin.

I get your point and I largely agree but it isn't that hard to see the appeal of threads for me. I don't think it's gonna work out in the end though so I really hope they mostly stay of the broader fediverse.

People want to be "where it's happening" and mastodon isn't that. Which might be fine for the people that do use it, but mastodon isn't going to be a platform where you can potentially interact with celebrities, politicians and journalists the way that twitter was for example any time soon.

(typed this out yesterday before @ZickZack s excellent answer, but couldn't post it at the time due to maintenance...)

No, you've got it wrong. This is a fairly common missunderstanding which is perpetuated by a lot of coverage about the topic being sloppy.

You could argue that there is a grain of truth to the idea of processing multiple possibilities at once, but it's a bit more complicated than that and the way it's usually presented leads to people building a bad intuition of how it works. If you do get in to the nitty-gritty of Shors algorithm it feels to me at least a bit like a weird hack that shouldn't work at all or at least not be faster than the normal way to compute prime factors. It isn't a general speedup, just in certain cases where you can exploit quantum mechanics in clever ways.

Of the top of my head the SMBC comic about it is actually pretty good. This article makes basically the same points, but a bit more elaborated (note that it was written a while ago so the part about the current state of quantum computing is outdated). I noticed that Veritasum put out a YouTube video which I haven't watched, but he is in my experience good at explaining physics and math so I think that there's a good chance that it'll hold up. I remember liking this Minute Physics video about Shor's algorithm too, if you wanna get a better understanding of it.

I should clarify that I'm not a quantum phycisist, I've just done a couple of internet deep dives on the topic but I can't say that I fully understand quantum computing at all. I do think my understanding of it is better than the one in this article and others like it.

Been gone for a couple of days

This is article is missleading about how quantum computing works.

Superposition increases the computing power of a quantum computer exponentially. For example, two qubits can exist in four states simultaneously (00, 01, 10, 11), three qubits in eight states, and so on. This allows quantum computers to process a massive number of possibilities at once.

Quantum computers aren't faster because they "process" multiple "possibilities" at once. Quantum computers aren't any faster than regular computers when it comes to general purpose computing. You can exploit some interesting properties about quantum computing to solve certain problems asymptotically faster, like with Shor's algorithm.

This means that the time to solve a problem as the size of the problem grows scales better. Using Shor's algorithm, the time to factor a polynomial is proprtional to (log N)^2 log log N, where N is the size of the input data, instead of the fastest known non-quantum algorithm which takes time proportional to e^(1.9(log N)^(1/3)(log log N)^(2/3)). Note that the majority of problems that we would maybe like to solve using a computer don't have any fancy quantum algorithms asociated with them and as such are no faster than a normal computer,

Given a large enough problem that can be solved with a quantum algorithm, a quantum computer will eventually outperform a non-quantum computer. This does not mean that quantum computers can solve arbitrary problems quickly.

neomut, because I have linux brain damage