So that's the part that gets me stuck. There is no clear answer and it has no way to check the result as QC aren't capable of doing so (otherwise they wouldn't be using QC since they can only be based on binary inputs and binary guesses of true / false outcomes on a massive scale). How can it decide that it is "correct" and that the task is completed?
Computations based on guesses of true / false can only be so accurate with no way to check the result in the moment.
I'd also like to know as I'm in the same boat you are. I'm just leaving this comment to remember to look later and see if you got an answer.
Yeah that's a really good example, this entire comment right here. Don't do this.
Just FYI, as per their own terms you can cancel up until it ships.
Grabbed the podcast! More detail never hurts. Much appreciated.
usufruct
So... reading the Wikipedia article on it for more info, it doesn't seem to place any limits on what you can own. It simply lets you makes allowances for others to use something of yours. It doesn't seem to mention forfeiting unused property in the least.
It's basically just being a landlord, but with other stuff, no? I'm not following how this isn't corruptible unless there's something I'm missing.
I misused a term, my apologies (I'm Canadian and my terminology was a little off). I was using Democratic Primaries in place of whatever the Democrats have as a candidate debate session like this was for the Republicans. If you let me know what it's called, I'll correct my post! Regardless of the name, did they have a fact checker there at that event?
Again, I don't believe the candidates have a chance against Trump UNLESS he is rejected as a candidate by enough states or other lawsuits have results that prevent him from running. If those do occur, then it will have been useful because it's not like the Republicans are just going to not field a candidate. Also as I mentioned, if a candidate has a strong base that really believes in them, sometimes they won't vote for the person that beat "their" candidate, thus splitting the vote. This is a good thing from the opposite side.
It's also a good thing because they're abiding by the Equal-Time Rule (essentially an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine).
Was there a fact-checker at the last Democratic primaries? If not, then why would there be a double standard?
And I think you may be mistaken about what these debates exist to do. They aren't there to "check facts" and make sure everyone only has correct opinions (which I would argue that even some on Democratic side do not have). They are there to show what the candidates believe, how they behave, and how they respond to pressure. They show how they act in front of a crowd, and how they respond later to missteps during the debates. In effect, they show a good public face for judging a politician.
The simple fact is that you aren't going to have every fact going into, say, a negotiation with China - you have to think on your feet.
Sometimes they are, if it's just audio and a static image. Some of them definitely are not that though. The ones with visualizers or full music videos or the like are not nearly as compressible.
So to combat use cases like this, why not just add a repeat option? There would be no break if it cached the beginning again.
Also just download the audio you want and loop it yourself. It would take roughly 2 minutes and use way less bandwidth.
I could see how that would be handy if I listened to them on more than one device.
Nah, they were never independent. They were owned by CBS prior to that, and before that they were owned by Red Ventures, and originally Whiskey Media.