Not dumb at all! Is a discussion that can be a little misleading, so be wary and don't blindly trust some random guy on a forum.
In the video they relate this randomness to the fact that qubits live in a superposition of states, in contrast to bits, which can be either 1 or 0, but not both. This means that when you measure a qubit, you would still obtain 1 OR 0, but you will obtain each with certain probability. So, how is this different to just picking a random bit and then measuring it? You could fabricate a way of picking those classical bit that yield the same distribution than the qubit.
We find a difference in one of the very first experiments that highlighted the quantum nature of the microscopic world; the double slit experiment: you have two screens, one with 2 small holes and the other is placed behind that. Then you send a bunch of classical particles through the punctured screen and you receive the counts on the screen behind it. Then you have a distribution of places where those particles hit. Then you do the same with quantum particles this time. You obtain a different pattern (this is important, is different to the classical pattern). This pattern is called "diffraction" pattern and means there was a wave like interaction between the particles. So now you try to do the same experiment with quantum particles, but sending them one by one, so no classical-like interaction could exist. Amazingly, you find the same diffraction pattern. This means one particle can "interact" with itself. The way physicists explain this is by allowing quantum states to exists on this superposition states which induces intrinsic randomness due to the fact that when measured, each particle could only have travelled through one of the slits, or each qubit (after measurement) can only be 1 OR 0, but not both.
This difference between classical and quantum description of nature goes deeper, and makes mechanisms as entanglement and teleportation possible. "Bell inequalities" are a great example of of some other, related ways in which both differ.
That is also the explanation they gave in the video. When they say "wrong or misleading", are referring to the fact that this is not always obvious when this projection is used, so it can make people think they can actually compare areas with it.
It is so shocking to see places with such different views on morality and righteousness that seems unreal, incomprehensible. I wouldn't like to say that my moral view is superior or better than any other, but I truly cannot understand why places like these seem to have stopped their development as humans, forgoing any kind of compassion and solidarity towards the one who suffers, maintaining ridiculous differences and segregations at the core of their way of living.
I don't know what motivates people like this girl to go places like that, but I wouldn't go anywhere near it; I don't think there is a landscape nor an amount of money worth the risk of meeting people so depraved of any characteristic I deem human, reasonable, or even warmth. Let alone a whole society like that.
The difference is that I can obtain music for free. Lamentably, I haven't ever seen a place offering free lasagne.
The point he is trying to make is to encourage musicians to skip the middle man, and make their music available on the internet by themselves. To make that possible we, consumers, need a change of mentality: "I can get music _now_ for free, but if I like it and want more, I should pay for it".
Also, regarding the mixing, I think it could be outsourced to some freelance producer, paid by song, or time, instead of being him the one that gives you cents on the dollar for your own creation.
I don't see how your rhetorical question constitutes a point towards the importance of "emphasize that Cristina Fernandez has her own NSA project" in this discussion.
The reaction of different latin-american governments has nothing to do with the NSA scandal, but with the prohibition given to Evo morales to flight and leave Europe.
In particular, she is not taking a stance regarding spying, but against the humiliation suffered by the president of a sovereign nation.
In the video they relate this randomness to the fact that qubits live in a superposition of states, in contrast to bits, which can be either 1 or 0, but not both. This means that when you measure a qubit, you would still obtain 1 OR 0, but you will obtain each with certain probability. So, how is this different to just picking a random bit and then measuring it? You could fabricate a way of picking those classical bit that yield the same distribution than the qubit.
We find a difference in one of the very first experiments that highlighted the quantum nature of the microscopic world; the double slit experiment: you have two screens, one with 2 small holes and the other is placed behind that. Then you send a bunch of classical particles through the punctured screen and you receive the counts on the screen behind it. Then you have a distribution of places where those particles hit. Then you do the same with quantum particles this time. You obtain a different pattern (this is important, is different to the classical pattern). This pattern is called "diffraction" pattern and means there was a wave like interaction between the particles. So now you try to do the same experiment with quantum particles, but sending them one by one, so no classical-like interaction could exist. Amazingly, you find the same diffraction pattern. This means one particle can "interact" with itself. The way physicists explain this is by allowing quantum states to exists on this superposition states which induces intrinsic randomness due to the fact that when measured, each particle could only have travelled through one of the slits, or each qubit (after measurement) can only be 1 OR 0, but not both.
This difference between classical and quantum description of nature goes deeper, and makes mechanisms as entanglement and teleportation possible. "Bell inequalities" are a great example of of some other, related ways in which both differ.