NaibofTabr

If you divert all the labor spent on useless shit towards actual things that people need then there is no need for a 996 work style.

But then who will make more money for the shareholders?

UBIOS's unique features over UEFI include increased support for chiplets and other heterogeneous computing use-cases, such as multi-CPU motherboards with mismatching CPUs, something UEFI struggles with or does not support. It will also better support non-x86 CPU architectures such as ARM, RISC-V, and LoongArch, the first major Chinese operating system.

Hmm, I haven't read the full spec, but typically when you're making mismatched components work together like this it means you can only support security features that are common for all of them - that is, any security can only be the lowest common standard. Does anybody know where to find more specific information on security features in UBIOS? Wider compatibility generally means more vulnerability.

One of the major design goals of UEFI was to add security to BIOS, which never had any real security in its design. If UBIOS is less secure than UEFI then it's really not a good idea to use it for anything beyond personal devices.

Does UBIOS have feature parity with UEFI or is it just targeting a different use case altogether? UEFI's security features are still not complete protection, but it would be a terrible idea to run a network server without them in the present cybersecurity environment.

Hey man, the tech literate people were saying this:

It's the VCs and the marketing people who were pushing cloud services as the next big thing.

The fact that the demonstrations were done with small molecules, however, means that the modeling run on the quantum computer could also have been done on classical hardware * (it only required 15 hardware qubits). So Google is claiming both quantum advantage and quantum utility, but not at the same time. The sorts of complex, long-distance interactions that would be out of range of classical simulation are still a bit beyond the reach of the current quantum hardware. O’Brien estimated that the hardware’s fidelity would have to improve by a factor of three or four to model molecules that are beyond classical simulation.

The quantum advantage issue should also be seen as a work in progress. Google has collaborated with enough researchers at enough institutions that there’s unlikely to be a major improvement in algorithms that could allow classical computers to catch up. Until the community as a whole has some time to digest the announcement, though, we shouldn’t take that as a given. **

The other issue is verifiability. Some quantum algorithms will produce results that can be easily verified on classical hardware—situations where it’s hard to calculate the right result but easy to confirm a correct answer. Quantum echoes isn’t one of those, so we’ll need another quantum computer to verify the behavior Google has described.

* Still not actually any more useful than similar modeling done on standard binary computers.

** Not peer reviewed.

I can't charge you rent for that, obviously. Everything you use should be a service, that you subscribe to, and pay me to access every month, or every week, or every day if I can get away with it.

or that they actually had some kind of plan...

but I am le tired...

I haven't claimed any accomplishment.

This is only just getting started. Just because there haven't been immediate results doesn't mean the protest is a waste of time and effort. Its visibility is a success in itself.

The only true failure is in quitting.

To suggest that the protests should not be done is to collaborate with the human dumpster fires that caused the protests.

No defeatist talk.

https://dayssince.itwasdns.net/