All potentiometer based controllers can drift eventually, the problem is the joycons are very thin and drift fairly quickly. Normally it takes years of heavy usage (think a competitive smash player jamming the thing back and forth) to become a problem. Joy cons fail under relatively average usage in a year or two, which is not normal.
Everyone assumes the Switch 2 joysticks are going to have the problem because they look almost exactly the same as the Switch 1 joysticks.
Also propaganda and lobbying by fossil fuel industries.
LLMs are curve fitting the function of “input text” to “expected output text”.
So when you give it an input text, it generates an output text interpolated from the expected outputs for similar inputs.
That means it’s often right for very common prompts and often wrong for prompts that are subtly different from common prompts.
She’s super creepy looking IMO
I got a huge reduction in random login attempts when I changed my ssh port away from the default.
(Of course I also have actual security measures like log in by key only)
I went ahead and read the article. I know a bit about quantum computing. Here’s my summary of it:
Entanglement is a useful resource for quantum networking, enabling things like quantum-secure communication and distributed quantum computing.
TLDR The paper describes algorithms to more efficiently create a form of entanglement that’s useful from the error-prone “dirty” entanglement you get from entanglement-generating hardware.
When you make entanglement, it often doesn’t come out perfect, and you need a technique to “distill” “good” entangled states out of a collection of “dirty” entangled states.
The typical “rules” for this involve two parties that create dirty shared entanglement (shared entanglement means a pair of entangled qubits, but each party has one of the qubits). They can then do whatever they like with their qubits individually and can communicate (over classical channels e.g. the internet) but they can’t do anything “quantum” between the two of them.
This paper analyzes the case where there is a 3rd party that follows these same rules but has been previously set up as an “entanglement battery”, which means preparing it in a special state from which entanglement can be “borrowed” or “returned” to the battery using only local operations and classical communication.
In particular it’s looking for “reversible” (meaning no loss in total entanglement over the process) “entanglement manipulation” (changing the entanglement from one form into another, presumably more useful form). It goes into a lot of analysis as to what the limits on this process are, and makes analogies to how engines work in thermodynamics.
This sounds like someone learning. It’s incredibly hard to admit you were wrong and do better. Don’t shame her for it.
I doubt someone who has only ever read about swimming could do it in deep, cold water. But they are talking about taking it to a swimming pool to practice. I think they’ll be fine.
The extra $20 is for taking the test again with the answer sheet next to you
It’s a tool without a use case, and there’s a lot of ongoing debate about what the use case for the tool should be.
It’s completely valid to want the tool to just be a tool and “nothing more”.
You should have to fill it in by climbing a big tower
I’ve had 8 joy cons drift. 6 of them I sent in to have Nintendo fix, the last pair I fixed myself with Hall effect sticks. I’ve also replaced some friends joycons with Hall effect sticks.