The calories out is mostly your body surviving. You can just ignore all exercise to simplify the out portion. You can get your BMR tested close enough that you can work with it. Or, you can estimate and iterate.
What? We're not refusing to "pay other software companies a few bucks for their engineering work", we refuse to give in to the extortion attempts of a greedy multi-billion dollar company.
I have and will keep financially supporting software I find useful. However, I do agree that it's questionable whether you can easily replace Google as a source of funding.
And in case of Mozilla it'll be the CEO's compensation, or engineering pay, or the fact that there was Pocket integration or something else will be made up to fuel angry refusal to support development of the browser.
There's always SOMETHING that's morally unacceptable to people who want it for free - I bet even full, total, complete submissions to whims of such community would not result in any significant revenue.
Reminds me of the crypto controversy of 2 years back. Mozilla had been allowing crypto donations for as long as they existed.
But then some important ex-employee "rediscovered" this, virtue signaled on Twitter how wildly inappropriate this is and formed a mob powerful enough to make Mozilla take the bow and close crypto donations.
And now? Well, now there won't be crypto donations. The same amount of crypto is mined, just none of it donated to Mozilla. You've achieved less than nothing, but you did the virtuous thing. Whilst simultaneously being funded by Google, with a laundry list of ethical violations, but those "don't count".
I find the videos themselves useful. YouTube just happens to be the place where they're hosted. I support content creators directly and I have a Nebula subscription.
If they want to charge for it, they're free to put it completely behind a paywall with accounts requiring sign-in, just like Netflix does.
The problem is they want it both ways: they want to give it out for free, but with annoying ads, but then they get mad when people don't look at the ads.
Where I live, people regularly stand on the street in busy pedestrian areas and hand out free packets of tissues with a piece of paper on top advertising some business. These businesses aren't clamoring for laws or some technical means to force people to look at the ads closely; people routinely take the tissues, toss out the ad, and use the tissues, and it's ok. But according to many, many HN users with stockholm syndrome, not reading these ads closely and just trashing them is somehow "stealing", because that tissue took resources and a factory to make.
> but then they get mad when people don't look at the ads
They aren't tracking your eyes and pause the video if you aren't watching the screen. Not saying they wouldn't do that if it was feasible...
They are annoyed that you are actively preventing them from playing out the ads in the first place, and they offered an alternative, to pay for not having the ads, at what is in my opinion a very reasonable price concidering the vast array of content you have access to on YouTube.
So they are effectively making the implicit contract explicit. Watch with ads or pay for no ads, otherwise you can happily choose to not use YouTube.
If you really think hosting video is cheap, make an alternative to YouTube.
Or, I can simply decline to watch (or even load) the ads, just like I decline to look at the ads in those tissue packs that are given to me on the street. I have no moral obligation to watch any ads on video that is freely shown in response to a normal HTTP GET request.
Just don't join the gaggle complaining about your adblocker randomly no longer working or YouTube randomly blocking the page till you disable it and were all good.
What's to complain about? My adblocker hasn't had any trouble at all yet, and even if it does, it won't be long before the adblocker people update their lists or software to work around whatever attempts YT might make against them. YT's efforts are utterly futile; there's absolutely no way they can stop adblockers without going to really extreme measures (like requiring a special client viewer app, or basically turning into another Netflix). Trying to devise a technical means of stopping ad-blockers requires far more effort than working around those attempts, and it only takes one determined or bored hacker to figure out a workaround and update the ad-blockers so suddenly everyone worldwide is blocking the ads again.
Google has massively anti-competitive practices, and especially with Youtube. They have made an explicit effort to kill competition in the online video space and have been very successful at it. We are now left, as a result of Google's malicious actions, with a single realistic option of platforms for video content creators. To have Google take these actions, then force us with the decision of "let us shove ads and tracking down your throat" or "miss a massive part of important media available, including for professional and educational reasons", feels pretty bad to me. Maybe extortion isn't the best word, but it's super shitty.
I'm going to feel icky for being a corpo simp, but how is asking for payment for a service an "extortion attempt"? Not asking as a YouTube premium subscriber or watcher of of ads (can't pay for Premium in my country and cannot bear to watch ads, so I use Firefox and an alternative client on my TV). I find it hard to frame it as an ad free but still subscription free service I am entitled to, and any attempt by Google to circumvent my workarounds as something unethical on their part.
Google only sells YouTube Premium bundled with a music subscription in my Spotify-dominated country, because they obviously want to use their large video platform to expand into music.
I'm going to guess the reason for this is you would be pretty annoyed if you get ads on music videos watch on YouTube even if you are paying for YouTube premium, and if you aren't 99% of users would.
You can't have your cake and eat it, Google neither and they will get what's coming but this is not the battle to pick, they do far worse than put ads on a video sharing platform
I honestly don't see how that is relevant, unless your perceived value of just watching videos ad free is lower than whatever price they have set; you can ignore that feature, right?
> Uncomputable functions exist because the halting problem exists.
Uncomputable functions exist because there are only countably many Turing machines. There are problems that stay uncomputable even if the halting problem were computable.
> The class of problems solvable in a finite amount of memory is just the class of regular languages. The “finite memory” is the finite state machine used to solve them.
I think they meant to say "constant memory" since every halting Turing Machine uses finite memory.
Wow, I've seen many AI-powered language apps lately, but this is by far the best. The others, if they offered verbal conversation at all, really struggled with my stuttering while trying to find the right words. I'm impressed that yours doesn't have this problem at all. It even understands when I use technical terms in english.
I'd love if the AI was a bit more fleshed out, so I can actually ask questions without getting the "I'm an LLM by OpenAI..." lecture.
Consider the problem P_f of getting an input x and having to compute a value >= f(x), where both the input and the output are encoded in unary. We know that BB grows faster than any computable function, so P_BB cannot be computable.
Suppose for contradiction that there was a computable problem Q with time complexity Omega(BB(x)). This means there exists a Turing Machine M that computes Q and a function T(n), such that for each n there exists an input y of length n, such that M halts after exactly T(n) steps. Moreover, T(n) = Omega(BB(x)).
Then we can construct a Turing Machine M' that computes P_BB. The idea is to run a TM for Q on a length x input and counting the number of computation steps. That number is then larger than BB(n) and thus a valid output for P_BB. Formally:
Let M be a TM that computes Q. Without loss of generality we assume that M uses a binary tape alphabet. Since T(n) = Omega(BB(x)), there exists per definition a C > 0 and an k_0 > 0 such that for all k > k_0 it holds that C*BB(k) <= T(k). M' now operates as follows. Given a unary input x, M' first checks if |x| <= k_0. If yes, M' just outputs BB(|x|). Otherwise, M' enumerates all bitstrings y of length |x|. For each y, M' then runs Q on y step-by-step while incrementing a unary counter c_y. Finally, M' outputs the longest such c_y, divided by C. Per assumption, the longest c_y satisfies C*BB(|x|) <= c_y, so c_y/C >= BB(|x|).
This implies that P_BB is computable, contradicting our initial observation. Consequently, such a Q cannot exist.
In fact, this proof works for any function that grows faster than all computable functions. This means that BB as an upper bound is not tight. For example log(BB) also satisfies this property.
I don’t think I have anything to add to the other comments here. Maybe the 1st key thing though is to recognize thath RU would absolutely false flag their own infra to create chaos and pressure on EU. Putin started his presidential career with a likely false flag that killed civilians. Blowing up NS1&2 is an obvious threat against Norwegian offshore and pipeline infra which now critical for EU.
The idea that Putin or Biden would do this is so ludicrous as to be dismissable out of hand.
Putin needs the revenues from these pipelines once hostilities end. He was likely extremely hopeful Europe would cave this winter and he could use them as leverage.
Biden has finally gotten a coalition in Europe to take Russia's aggressions seriously and their combined efforts have Ukraine making great progress in winning the war.
A larger number of qubits allows us to do effective quantum error correction. The idea is to group multiple physical qubits into one logical qubit, think of it as redundancy.
So what's the number of logical qubits we have achieved working practically then? Is this scalable, or is it just going to exponentially require physical qubits for each additional logical qubit?
Quantum error correction has been experimentally demonstrated for a single logical qubit, e.g. [0][1]. Even though there might be implementations of multiple such qubits, we're still very much in the "Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum" era.
Generally, the number of physical qubits scales linearly with the number of logical qubits.
