I have a side question. If gravity (i.e. warping of space time) propagates at the speed of light. Then does that mean that the Alcubierre warp drive is fundamentally incapable of supra-light speeds?
Beautiful ideas! Do you have a way to control the final stereo-isomer that comes out of the synthesis? I'm thinking of the "256 stereo-isomer" molecule that you mentioned. Or is it a case of brute force and select afterwards?
No, that rings hollow to me. Humans are sophisticated enough to genuinely have other needs aside from primal mating urges. Self-actualization is a huge one and more than sufficient to be the primary motivator for someone seeking to leave a family/marriage situation.
Ish. How much do you know about the Russian cultural psyche?
I'm not disagreeing that the paranoia around American<->Russian relations isn't massively overblown, but I think you underestimate the aspirations of the Russian ruling class, and the degree to which the working class would bend to those aspirations if called upon (forced to).
I really love this story (no sarcasm intended at all). It's such a physicist's story. The recollections of Einstein amount to "he was a nice guy", but the bulk of the story is details about whatever problem she was working on at the time.
So I read the wiki on the One-time pad and there's something I'm a little stuck on. There's a statement (paraphrasing) that the OTP is immune to cryptanalysis (brute force) because any given key translates to all possible plain-text, and the viable words all have a-priori the same likelihood.
The thing I'm stuck on though, isn't it still possible to do semantic analysis on the various permutations. Basically reading permutations for cogent statements? So do some sort of a-posteriori analysis
Infeasible for a human to do, but assuming one could construct a significantly advanced parser (non-trivial of course), wouldn't it be possible to brute force still? What am I missing?
I think your tl;dr is unjust. I read the author as criticizing the imposition of a simple story onto the nuanced experiences of people. I think he criticizes it for the lack of artistic subtlety (pictures are not allowed to speak to the reader by themselves) and also for the effect that ignoring social structure has on the way the art is consumed.
He decries the "read, get emotional cookies, and forget" effect of the simple "uplifting" narratives of every day people. The consumer of the art must think no further than one person's experience.
Practically speaking, even armed you're a subject. The government is free to impose its will on you any time it likes unless you're in the business of shooting police offices who pull you over.