2017-05-15 at 1:08 AM UTC
You can tell the machine is malfunctioning or atleast one of the overlookers fucked up, like spilled their blongus cup on one of the reality simulation emitters and for a sec, sometimes in like rotating frequencies you can see the grids, almost like a video game texture when your graphics card is all fucked up, its not just a projection of light obviously, projection of matter isn't perfect and since its all tech their are nanobots, smaller than quarks but still clusters of squiggly error fibers are what morgellons are. Or a computer virus in the subsystems
2017-05-15 at 1:49 AM UTC
kroz
weak whyte, frothy cuck, and former twink
maxheadroom, what is your opinion on the validity and usefulness of quantum computers?
2017-05-15 at 2:42 AM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
Originally posted by Bill Krozby
maxheadroom, what is your opinion on the validity and usefulness of quantum computers?
proof of concept is running, I believe it's a system that can handle 7 discrete states as opposed to the standard 2 (allowing the system to represent data in a base-7 number system as opposed to binary, in turn allowing it to process much larger amounts of data in a single instruction). Last I heard they had one register working, and they're trying to work around mechanical limitations in linking enough together to do any meaningful data processing.
Also GRIDS = Gay Related ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome
Quantum GRIDS spreads by gays just thinking about bumming each other
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-05-15 at 4:07 AM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
no, that post is serious except for the GRIDS/AIDS bit
The main thing you want to keep in mind with quantum computing is that the real limitation of current computers is the number system - they're forced to use binary because the transistors used are only able to detect electrical charges as being ON (1) or OFF (0).
The goal of Quantum Computing is to create a system that can use a number system with more digits than just 1/0 - the way they're trying to do it is to, instead of observing an electrical charge that can only be ON or OFF, observe a quantum particle that can have any number of bizarre states like ON/OFF/HALF-ON/etc.
The reason for that is to be able to process a lot more data in a single instruction - for example:
Raw text: niggasinspace
binary (base 2): 01101110 01101001 01100111 01100111 01100001 01110011 01101001 01101110 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101
CopyClear
hexadecimal (base 16): 6e 69 67 67 61 73 69 6e 73 70 61 63 65
The difference in processing speeds between base-2 and base-3 would be so great that it'd potentially render all current encryption standards useless... Let alone the potential difference in speeds moving up to base-7 or even base-16.
I'm sure you'll work it out soon enough if you're interested in reading, but having a basic understanding of how normal microprocessors and the assembly language work will really help in understanding what they're trying to accomplish.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-05-15 at 9:51 AM UTC
Whoa...
I'm 100% sure Doug had absolutely no idea about Quantum Computers. Like, at all. He just picked the word up in a flat earth video vlog by a homeless person. Haha.
I had no clue about that shit, either. Thanks for explaining this, aldra. The term makes a lot of sense now.
How do you come from base 2 to base 16 and the steps between?
2017-05-15 at 10:09 AM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
it was just to show the difference in space taken to represent a value between different number systems; basically the more symbols you can use the less space it takes to represent a value. I only used hex as an example because it's fairly common
2017-05-15 at 10:21 AM UTC
binary --
base 5 -----
3 pieces of base 5 ----- ----- -----
3 pieces of binary (base 2) -- -- --
2017-05-15 at 10:23 AM UTC
n(x)
n is number of variables
x is number of positions in quantum space it can take
large x makes the same amount of n result in more quantum possibility
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-05-15 at 10:24 AM UTC
I meant, aldra. LOL.
Your input is always welcome though, schplewdiepie.
