The Airthings View Plus is a good one. It has high quality (for consumer) particulate, CO2, VOC and Radon sensors and a good interface. Also tracks temperature, pressure, and humidity for completeness.
Practice like you are learning a musical instrument or chess. Break it down into very specific subskills (like a specific chess endgame or guitar picking technique) and practice those in isolation in addition to your usual practice. Also find a coach if possible.
Feynman diagrams are a representation of an integral so moving beyond them is a question of reformulating the mathematical basis of physics.
There is some work in that direction (look up 'Amplituhedron') but overall it's not that surprising that physicists are using computers to do the same math with much more precision than they could before rather than shaking up the fundamental mathematical tools of their field which have stood since the 1600s.
He's not wrong about the narrow algorithmic use cases (so far), but he's completely missing the utility for simulation of quantum phenomena (chemistry, microbiology, materials science). That use case alone completely justifies investing into them even if you don't care about advancing science.
I think one of the biggest applications for quantum computers which isn't well appreciated is simulation of quantum systems: chemistry and materials science. Similar to the old analog computers which were used to simulate differential equations long before they could be fully "virtualized" (simulated deterministically without noise) using digital algorithms.
There are always alternative ways to describe the same phenomena. For example QM could be done with only real numbers (you can emulate imaginary numbers with matrix operations). There is no clear cut notion of what is "required".
No, they can solve integer factoring. This result shows that polynomial factoring is fundamentally different from integer factoring. The latter is believed to not be NP Hard.
To avoid misleading, I want to clarify that the reduction in cost of solar energy has been driven far more by manufacturing scale than by efficiency improvements (although they are also relevant).
He had grants for 0.25% of the company but left when only 1/3 of them were vested . Gitlab will probably IPO for at least a $10 billion valuation. Assuming no further dilution since the grant, the shares would be worth $8.3 million for a $4050 option exercise.
The headline is misleading. The work tightened the range of possible strengths of a fifth force by a factor of 10. In other words it ruled out the existence of a fifth force within a wide range of parameters that were previously open.
It's just an absolutely giant construction project. The mass and volume of the construction goes as the cube of the major radius of the reactor. Back of the envelope, SPARC is (6/1.5)^3 = 64 times smaller than ITER. The construction budget for SPARC is ~$500M, so ITER being tens of billions is in line.
Thanks for the links. This is a really well written case which relies on an easily swallowed fallacy. The argument is that the main limiter to improvement of batteries is research which needs time, so we shouldn't quickly scale up battery production and end up with suboptimal batteries.
Of course the main way to improve batteries at this point is to make them cheaper, which comes directly from production scale (look at what happened with solar panels). And even if that wasn't the case, while we wait for improved tech before we scale up battery production, we're continuing to dig up and burn fossil fuels.
This reminds me of some of the propaganda spread by fossil fuel companies decades ago. They position themselves as being on the side of environment, and yet the conclusion is always to delay, do more research, and continue with the status quo.
Wind acts like a battery (or capacitor) that smooths out fluctuations in solar energy. Radiant solar being more "direct" really has nothing to do with which is the better option.