I think the exchange got off on the wrong foot. I think the point to be made is that American history being seen as simply a history of racism and white supremacy is a new thing, and a sad thing. Because, as you know, other things happened here.
>These new freedoms and liberties are created by technology
Okay... let's see:
>increased wealth distribution (globally)
Trend began before the internet (the subject at hand).
>changing social norms towards individual rights and equality
Trend began before the internet (the subject at hand).
>I can, for example, participate in international engineering efforts from any one of a billion places with steady internet that will allow me to stay.
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>I can eat a greater variety of foods than my grandparents enjoyed. I can do research and study about my own medical alignments and make better informed decisions about my healthcare than every before. I have the option to marry anyone that agrees to it, regardless of race or gender. I can practice the religion of my choosing openly.
All irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>I understand that there is a lot of pain and a large risk of group think associated with our global information system. I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today.
Disagree. It isn't about your basic individual freedom to choose. You can choose, yes. But it is about the field of vision presented to the focus of your mind, or rather the collective mind. It is about the narrowing of that field of view. Narrow the field of view: narrow the choices people believe they have. This, in effect, narrows their choices, regardless of their ability, or freedom, to choose.
Exactly. It’s almost like the internet isn’t the most important thing happening right now. Combining the world’s networks into one is really powerful, but the world is a big place. The internet isn’t going to cause a utopia or a dystopia.
Don't. I just got my PhD (working on quantum computing at a good school) and I do not really get the point they are making. It is interesting, but esoteric even for people working in related fields.
However, it is a great opportunity to start learning more about it!
My comment isn't useful, but I really can't get a handle on anything "quantum" related. The only thing I sort of understand is that if you could entangle a massive amount of photons/electrons, you could have "quantum radar" which would be jam-proof.
I don't really understand even that though. Could you verify an electron reflecting back is entangled with an electron you have on hand, or are they all just "entangled" with something or "entangled" with some spin (which could be replicated)?
>My comment isn't useful, but I really can't get a handle on anything "quantum" related.
That is probably because you have tried to read "applications" papers/articles (some of them of dubious scientific value, and more sci-fi/futurology) without properly understanding the fundamentals first. I strongly recommend "Quantum Mechanics", Cohen-Tannoudji et al. The first two chapters are the best introduction to quantum mechanics I've read: concise and to the point, starting from experiment and explaining the key ideas of quantum theory, and then the mathematical formulation.
The angry vocal minority on twitter (people who may not even be customers, perhaps likely are not) really has such an effect on a company's sales? Got any examples?
