> Upshot: You use quantum mechanics to decide a classical potential for you (e.g. you chose the classical potential that factors into pairs such that each pair energy is 'closest' in the Hilbert space metric to the quantum rest) - Downside: You're missing the variance.
Couldn't the quantum mechanical state become multimodal such that the classical approximation picks a state that is far away from the physical reality?
And, couldn't this multimodality excaberate during the actual physical process and possibly arrive at a number of probable outcomes which are never predicted by the simulation? Is there more than hope that that doesn't happen?
This explanation is interesting. Thanks for sharing it. While reading it, I got the impression that the simulation is not fully quantum mechanical, but rather classical with select quantum mechanical effects.
Which parts of quantum mechanics are idealised away and how do we know that not including them won't significantly reduce the quality of the result?
Are you possibly using stochastical noise in the simulations and repeat them multiple times, in the hope that whatever disturbance caused by the idealisation of the model is covered by the noise?
I'm saying that copyright is unjust. It violates fundamental individual freedoms of people like freedom of expression to achieve goals that do not justify that mean, and is therefore illegitimate.
The comparison to laws that protect people is invalid because copyright does not protect people. It grants governmentally enforced monopolies. Copyright has a legitimate goal. There is a value in certain activities for society and copyright is a governments intervention to increase that activity.
There are other things that are considered so important that the government takes action to provide them, like for example social security, health services and infrastructure. That is realized by taxation. I'm suggesting that the state should use taxation to ensure the activity of those who rely now on copyright so the restrictions of individual fundamental freedoms is gone.
Note that copyright has become even more restrictive with time. There are situations where people are forbidden from singing a song on a birthday party in public. This is an example of where the unjust restriction of individual freedoms becomes apparent.
And I'm saying that this injustice in some situations is so grave, that we should show civil disobedience and try to break and mock copyright when possible as a form of protest.
Copyright does not deserve voluntary submission anyways. It is an unjust and ever stricter becoming legal framework to give life support to an industry that is unwilling to adjust to new technological realities.
It is not stealing. It may be illegal, but it isn't stealing nor robbery. You may be violating the copyright law, but nobody is taken away any object and there is no threat of violence. When people get access to copyrighted works, then at first, it is good for people. Only then the idea is that the creators can't make a living by producing those works. We can solve that differently, without using copyright. Copyright is a weirdly anti-market and authoritarian concept where the government artificially makes something scarce by punishing supply. In any case, distributing stuff is not stealing. /rant
That's not what is said in the article of politico. Here is what is reported:
First, The allegation:
According to the article, Trump was trying to get the Tübingen-based CureVac company — which also has sites in Frankfurt and Boston — to move its research wing to the United States and develop the vaccine "for the U.S. only."
Then, the government acknowledgement:
A spokesperson for Germany's Health Ministry quoted in the article appeared to acknowledge the U.S. approach and said that Berlin was "very interested in ensuring that vaccines and active substances against the new coronavirus are also developed in Germany and Europe."
Who says this is incorrect? The alleged party? Because the company did not deny that it was approached by the US American government to sell exclusive access. It just denied that it will be bought, which is a different thing. Regarding the exclusivity it has declared that it will ensure that the vaccine will be available to the world, without neither confirming nor denying the allegation. The fact that they clarify that (source: https://www.curevac.com/news/curevac-focuses-on-the-developm...) the fact that the German government acted at all (multiple reports of that exist), and the fact that the CEO of the company was fired (the company has a press release about it) after meeting Trump are further evidence that indeed an exclusive deal was sought.
The company CureVac only denied rumours that it will be bought, it did nor deny claims that the Trump administration approached them and tried to buy exclusive access to the vaccine.
I quote from the article: "US President Trump is attempting to entice a German lab to develop a vaccine exclusively for the US, a German newspaper reported."
You are sharing the conspiracy theory that the Trump administration did not in fact try to secure exclusive access to the vaccine.
The rate of rule breaking comments was high. The other threads may give an impression, if you show dead comments.
Some are spreading the conspiracy theory that either the broadcasters and news outlets conspired to produced incorrect but matching reports, or that the German government intentionally spreads the lie that the Trump administration tried to secure exclusive access to the vaccine. It seems to me that Trump supporters want to shield his administration from reports that make it look bad.
This might be a clear case of a selection bias. When the quality of threads goes down, I tend to stay away from them and the moderators need to interact more with it. When a thread has a fantastic quality, I feel a urge to interact with it, to read it, while the moderation is not needed.
When many comments break side guidelines and the thread is wretched, then that feels odd and usual for me for HN. Probably you see more threads like this and it isn't unusual, but for me it feels not at all what I expect and relate to what I think happens on HN. This speaks for the quality of this site. Thanks for the info!
As distastrious as it might be that this may be part now of US American culture, it doesn't need to start happening here nor be tolerated. The nature of this place is that we can talk with reason and share facts based on evidence. If people seek to disturb that, for whatever reason, I advocate for corresponding moderation.
Couldn't the quantum mechanical state become multimodal such that the classical approximation picks a state that is far away from the physical reality?
And, couldn't this multimodality excaberate during the actual physical process and possibly arrive at a number of probable outcomes which are never predicted by the simulation? Is there more than hope that that doesn't happen?