Author Topic: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus  (Read 41694 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile
Facebook's script lower case "i"
« Reply #200 on: October 29, 2018, 10:15:58 PM »
On FB when I post a URL there now appears a script lower case “I” to the side of it.  Clicking on the “i” brings up a brief background on the site.  I confess my initial reaction is that I like this.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile
China exports internet censorship in anme of cyber sovereignty
« Reply #201 on: November 02, 2018, 05:49:59 AM »


https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/asia/internet-freedom-china-censorship-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2cwA76Bh7BVRu-G5DxgB1Dr-JptqpXe391zAGllRRX_qlhnUaRufzDYhY


The term herein of “cyber sovereignty” really caught my attention.  Is this not what many here in America assert vs. Russian and other hostile powers fake news interventions here in the US?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12455
    • View Profile
Re: China exports internet censorship in anme of cyber sovereignty
« Reply #202 on: November 02, 2018, 07:22:38 AM »


https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/asia/internet-freedom-china-censorship-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2cwA76Bh7BVRu-G5DxgB1Dr-JptqpXe391zAGllRRX_qlhnUaRufzDYhY


The term herein of “cyber sovereignty” really caught my attention.  Is this not what many here in America assert vs. Russian and other hostile powers fake news interventions here in the US?

Orwellian. The censorship term only tells only part of the story.  Keeping things out of the news is different than telling us things that aren't so. What they do is report falsely and sensor anyone correcting or opposing it. Shameful that American companies like Google are involved.

We use the Pravda analogy here but a Soviet survivor says the US msm is worse. They had one news source and they knew it was false, State propaganda. We have a plethora of sources that act as an echo chamber for fake or biased news, NYT, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, Washington Post, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, slate, CNN, MSNBC, Minneapolis Star and Sickle, Scientific American, and on and on. The other day it took 55 Google results from a search to get to a different viewpoint.

There is a difference I suppose between invading our news against our will and being hired by a government to alter it.
----------

Red is gray and yellow white, but we decide which is right - and which is an illusion.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
The Lefts answer to the caravan.

No threat to us.
No biggie
Is not even a real issue - is made up - by Trump. 

And Notice how the MSM has stopped discussing it much!

If they don't show it other then to turn the reality of the threat around to bash Trump , then it is not a problem.
Only a problem in the minds of the awful people who support Trump.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile
Deplatforming
« Reply #207 on: November 15, 2018, 09:42:07 PM »
Thugs Disrupt MEF Congressional Event

News from the Middle East Forum

November 15, 2018

https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/thugs-disrupt-mef-congressional-event


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
in response to Bigdog's post about restaurants using data
« Reply #209 on: November 18, 2018, 11:30:00 AM »
to sell to marketers  ( 3 posts previously)

reminds of when I want to a place where I used to get my haircut.  When they started asking me questions about my email my phone number to enter in to *their* data base
I protested and never went back there again

"For goodness sakes", I exclaimed, "I am just coming in here for a haircut".

do you want my social sec # too ?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
just something wrong with this
« Reply #211 on: November 22, 2018, 04:15:00 AM »
work for the government fighting antitrust for the "people" then get bought out by the big money to fight the government and the "people" for Zuck.
I know every in gov does this but just so screwed up:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/21/facebook-has-poached-the-dojs-silicon-valley-antitrust-chief/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile
The opening entry in the Trump Promises Kept thread references an EO that I remember as prohibiting this sort of thing.  Can we find a citation?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile
The Creepy Line
« Reply #218 on: November 30, 2018, 05:47:54 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqlDtjnwyPA

Just saw it. A very important movie.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
Looks like a good movie
I want to see it.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile
Looks like a good movie
I want to see it.



You can watch it on Amazon Prime, who of course tracks and sells the media you watch...

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
"You can watch it on Amazon Prime, who of course tracks and sells the media you watch..."

 :-o

( could i venture to guess it is censored through Google or FB or listed on the 100th page of a search on their sites.)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile
Big Tech's Authoritarian Practices Are Accelerating. Will You Submit?
« Reply #222 on: November 30, 2018, 10:03:10 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/do-you-hear-the-people-tweet/

Big Tech's Authoritarian Practices Are Accelerating. Will You Submit?
 BY RICHARD FERNANDEZ NOVEMBER 26, 2018

Glenn Reynolds has deactivated his Twitter account, citing the banning of Jesse Kelly for no apparent reason as the immediate cause of his disillusionment with the platform. Explaining his decision, he wrote:

Why should I provide free content to people I don’t like, who hate me? I’m currently working on a book on social media, and I keep coming back to the point that Twitter is far and away the most socially destructive of the various platforms. So I decided to suspend them, as they are suspending others. At least I’m giving my reasons, which is more than they’ve done usually.
He may have beaten the digital bouncers to the door by only a little. The Thought Police are rushing to ensure that everyone toes the line. The Straits Times reports that "Facebook will allow French regulators to 'embed' inside the company to examine how it combats online hate speech, the first time the wary tech giant has opened its doors in such a way, President Emmanuel Macron said."

The trial project is an example of what Mr Macron has called "smart regulation", something he wants to extend to other tech leaders such as Google, Apple and Amazon.
The move follows a meeting with Facebook's founder, Mr Mark Zuckerberg, in May, when Mr Macron invited the chief executive officers of some of the biggest tech firms to Paris, telling them they should work for the common good.

The officials may be seconded from the telecoms regulator and the interior and justice ministries, a government source said. Facebook said the selection was up to the French presidency.

It is unclear whether the group will have access to highly sensitive material such as Facebook's algorithms or codes to remove hate speech. It could travel to Facebook's European headquarters in Dublin and global base in Menlo Park, California, if necessary, the company said.

This is the same Emmanuel Macron who is worried that protests by the French miserables against his crushing environmental fuel taxes could hurt the government's image:

The French president told ministers at a cabinet meeting on Monday that the government must respond after images were relayed around the world of police firing teargas and water cannon at protesters who set up barricades, lit fires and smashed restaurants and shopfronts on the Champs-Élysées.
It's not just Macron who is leaning on Google. The government of China is also exerting pressure on the tech companies to help them to build a social media surveillance state. Here's Ben Gomes, Google's search engine chief who "joked about the unpredictability of President Donald Trump and groaned about the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China, which has slowed down Google’s negotiations with Communist Party officials in Beijing, whose approval Google requires to launch the censored search engine":

China I think is one of the most interesting markets, arguably the most interesting market in the world today. Just by virtue of being there and paying attention to the Chinese market, we will learn things, because in many ways China was leading the world in some kinds of innovation. We need to understand what is happening there in order to inspire us. It’s not just a one-way street. China will teach us things that we don’t know. And the people, as you work on this, both in the Chinese offices and elsewhere, paying attention to the things that are happening there is incredibly valuable for us as Google, potentially not just in China, but somewhere else entirely.
One of the things China will pioneer, as the New York Times reports, is to use "A.I., shame and lots of cameras" to control its population:

With millions of cameras and billions of lines of code, China is building a high-tech authoritarian future. Beijing is embracing technologies like facial recognition and artificial intelligence to identify and track 1.4 billion people. It wants to assemble a vast and unprecedented national surveillance system, with crucial help from its thriving technology industry ...
China is reversing the commonly held vision of technology as a great democratizer, bringing people more freedom and connecting them to the world. In China, it has brought control.

...

“The goal is algorithmic governance.”

The control system China is implementing creates two classes of citizens: the Woke and the Haters.  The former will be rewarded and the latter banned from any responsible role in life:

China’s plan to judge each of its 1.3 billion people based on their social behavior is moving a step closer to reality, with Beijing set to adopt a lifelong points program by 2021 that assigns personalized ratings for each resident ... The Beijing project will improve blacklist systems so that those deemed untrustworthy will be "unable to move even a single step."
As Tyler Grant notes in The Hill, the basic algorithms behind the Chinese social scoring system and Western hate speech systems are essentially the same. "It’s tempting to think this government overreach is purely reserved to China, after all they did just forfeit significant freedom by electing Xi Jinping president for life. This is incorrect thinking. The rest of the world is steps away from trailing the Chinese into a surveillance state":

The U.K. fines and even imprisons people for hate speech or speech deemed abhorrent to the prevailing norms of society. The U.S. is not far behind. Last week, a Manhattan judge ruled a bar can toss Trump supporters for their political viewpoints. A recent proliferation of politically motivated boycotts seeks to punish "bad" viewpoints; protesters are eager to shout down incorrect speech. In this political climate, it’s not difficult to imagine businesses or the government assessing social benefit or worth based upon a variety of factors including political speech.
With incredible data collection, the plumbing is already in place for such a system to take hold. Our tech companies catalogue large quantities of data on everyone. As we saw with Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 election, this data can be used to steer particular viewpoints; it’s not a far cry to imagine information being used to control viewpoints.

There's nothing to lose by quitting if they're coming for you anyway. At least you get a head start.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile
Goolag lies
« Reply #223 on: December 06, 2018, 04:44:27 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-finds-googles-incognito-mode-is-a-lie-its-an-illusion/
Google Tracks Users in Incognito Mode, Study Finds

 BY TYLER O'NEIL DECEMBER 5, 2018

Google Incognito mode screenshot.

On Tuesday, Google competitor Duck Duck Go released a study showing that Google gives users personalized search results, even when a user goes into "incognito mode." Dr. Robert Epstein, a Ph.D. psychologist who focuses on search engine manipulation, drew the logical conclusion Duck Duck Go refused to state.

"The incognito mode is a lie, that's what they found," Epstein, whose research features prominently in the recent film "The Creepy Line," told PJ Media on Wednesday. "The kind of search results they were getting from people in incognito mode and in normal mode were extremely similar, and of course the results that one person got were extremely different than the results that another person got."

"That's another way of saying that incognito mode is a lie. It's an illusion," the psychologist explained. "They didn't say that, but that's what they found."

While incognito mode "may hide certain kinds of things from certain kinds of websites," letting users get around paywalls of various kinds, it does not hide a user's identity from Google. This means Google still carries out surveillance to know what users want and applies its advertising to leverage the algorithm to their profit, even in "incognito mode."

Epstein admitted that the study had problems. "We have a credibility problem for sure — they didn't tell us how they found their volunteers, for example," he said. He also faulted the study for "just showing you the raw numbers without using statistical methods to see whether these numbers are significant statistically. They didn't do that, for some reason."

However, the psychologist did a deep dive into the results and found them rather credible, so long as the volunteers were truly chosen at random. That said, Epstein did not side with Duck Duck Go over Google.

"I don't recommend Duck Duck Go to people, even though I believe they don't track data and I think that's great," he explained. "I don't recommend it because I don't find the quality of their search results to be very good."

Google may offer a better product, but the company does not deserve users' trust. "I don't think Google is an honest company and I think this study is another indicator of that," Epstein said.

Google Bias Against Conservative News Is 'Much More Dangerous' Than China's Actions, Expert Says
"They routinely favor search results that benefit the company," he explained, noting multiple fines from the European Union, India, and Russia for abusing its dominant position on the Google Play store.

Some people might see the potential for shenanigans in re-ordering the search results, but Epstein warned that manipulation starts even with the underlying algorithm. "It doesn't matter whether someone is deliberately re-ranking. What matters is how they build the algorithm," he explained. "It favors the company's own values, products and services. That's how they build the algorithm."

The psychologist responded to an article by the Guardian's Oscar Schwartz, which re-assures audiences that Google has no biases against conservatives or others, but just gives the user what users want.

"All the article does is toe the line. It just repeats Google's own claims about what it does and it repeats them uncritically," Epstein shot back. He argued that Schwartz "doesn't understand when a search algorithm favors one product, candidate, or cause more than another. To say that it's because of user behavior is to say nothing. That's Google's defense, and it's absurd."

Epstein referenced a very recent example of Google auto-fill bias. He typed in "The republican party is," and the top suggestions included "the single greatest threat," "dead in california," and "about to drown." The top results for "The democratic party is" were "an example of a 527 organization" and "based on the following ideas."

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Dr. Robert Epstein
@DrREpstein
 Here's another example of how #GSA (fka #Google) manipulates people's thinking by suppressing negative search suggestions for causes it supports. I captured these images early this morning (Dec 5, 2018). Notice how negatives are suppressed for #Democrats but not for #Republicans:

12
1:17 AM - Dec 5, 2018
16 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
"If you looked up Google trends and you looked for these phrases, you’d find that virtually no one has ever searched for 'the democratic party is based on the following ideas,'" the psychologist explained. Indeed, I checked Google Trends, and sure enough there was not enough data.


Google Trends screenshot for "The Democratic Party is based on the following ideas."
As Epstein suggested, however, there were a great many results for "The Democratic Party is corrupt."


Google Trends screenshot for "The Democratic Party is corrupt."
If the "corrupt" angle gets far more searches from users than the "ideas" angle, why does the search suggestion favor "ideas" over "corrupt"?

"Why don't we see that? Because we know from research that the simplest way to support any cause or candidate is to suppress negatives," the psychologist explained. "It's a simple manipulation which we know can dramatically shift the opinions and preferences of undecided voters."

Google Exec Boasted About Helping Hillary Clinton by Boosting Latino Turnout in 2016
Epstein also referenced a study he had performed in 2016, showing that Google suppressed negative search results about Hillary Clinton, while Bing and Yahoo did not.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Dr. Robert Epstein
@DrREpstein
 So @toco8a believes that #GSA (formerly #Google) doesn't use search suggestions to manipulate people. See the images below (from Aug. 3, 2016), and see what you think. For further info, see my research summary here: http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_MOHR_&_MARTINEZ_2018-WPA-The_Search_Suggestion_Effect-SSE-WP-17-03.pdf

17
9:00 AM - Nov 25, 2018
21 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The psychologist's research has shown that suppressing negative results can shift a 50-50 split among undecided voters to a 90-10 split. "Negatives draw attention, negatives can draw ten to fifteen times as many clicks," thanks to "negativity bias."

His research also concluded that this kind of manipulation is "subliminal" — people don't notice it.

Ironically, when someone like Epstein calls foul on one-sided results, the behemoth search engine company merely alters the system.

"When they get caught, they usually make a change. It's absurd for them to say that all of this is just occurring because of impartial algorithms. That's just not true," the psychologist said.

Then there are the leaks. Google executives bragged about increasing Latino turnout in 2016, hoping it would help Hillary Clinton. In September, The Wall Street Journal uncovered emails in which Google workers discussed manipulating search results to disfavor President Trump's travel ban. Last week, the Daily Caller unveiled more emails, showing Google executives scheming against conservative media outlets.

Yet journalists like Schwartz can't accept the fact of manipulation. Epstein explained that, too. "People can see the human hand when they're reading an article and on a television or radio show, but when they're dealing with algorithmic output, they don't see the human hand so they trust algorithms more than any other type of media."

Google has three major manipulation strategies. The company "personalizes search suggestions, search results, and answer boxes." The "answer box" effect proves most powerful, the psychologist explained.

"When you query Google either using the search engine's 'I'm feeling lucky' or the home device or Google assistant, they just give you the answer," Epstein said. "When they give you the answer, three things happen: people spend less time searching; they click on fewer search results; and the shift in opinions increases between 10 and 30 percent."

"Giving someone the answer has a more powerful effect than search results that favor one cause or candidate or company," Epstein explained. Google is excellent at personalizing results, and "the better you are at personalizing them, the greater impact you're going to have on people's opinions."

The company also knows how to mask its manipulations, and the psychologist suggested that it may use more obvious manipulations as a red herring, to distract from the more fundamental attempts to shape public opinion. The "fake news" freakout has only made this strategy more effective.

New Movie Claims Google Handed the Popular Vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016
"Google and Facebook have co-operated to combat fake news stories and Russian-placed ads," Epstein noted. "I think these companies are loving that our attention is drawn away from what they themselves are doing."

The psychologist often refers to Google as "GSA." "I call it Google Surveillance and Advertising, L.L.C.," he told PJ Media. "Surveillance is what they do and advertising is how they make their money."

This surveillance and advertising combine to form an effective money-making machine and give the company tremendous power to influence public opinion. Indeed, Epstein's research has found that Google's bias in favor of Hillary Clinton accounts for her margin of victory in the popular vote.

Thanks to Duck Duck Go, Americans know that "incognito mode" cannot hide users from Google's personalized results. If "incognito mode" is a lie, what else is?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile
Posting this forward!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile
The Neo-Luddites?
« Reply #225 on: December 07, 2018, 03:40:10 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile
WSJ: Facebook censors at random
« Reply #226 on: December 10, 2018, 06:28:18 AM »
Facebook Censors at Random
The social network’s rules on political advertising burden nonprofits and are impossible to understand.
65 Comments
By Daniel Gallant
Dec. 9, 2018 5:52 p.m. ET
Facebook Censors at Random
Photo: David Gothard

If you used Facebook in late November, you probably saw a stream of fundraising campaigns for charities and cultural organizations. That’s because Facebook offered up to $7 million in matching donations for nonprofits that used its platform to raise funds on Giving Tuesday. But this gesture masks the negative impact Facebook’s newly adopted advertising policies have had on nonprofit organizations that rely on social media.

In response to public scrutiny stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal this year, Facebook has implemented enforcement measures aimed at improving election security and discouraging anonymous political messages. These measures have been poorly executed and inconsistently applied. They unfairly burden charitable organizations and small businesses, yet are easy for organized or well-funded actors to circumvent.

Several paid advertising campaigns run by my colleagues and clients have been inexplicably obstructed by Facebook’s policing in the past several months. Facebook refused to allow my New York cultural nonprofit, the Nuyorican Poets Cafe, to pay to promote a post encouraging people to vote in the midterms because our page was not “authorized to run ads related to politics.” A campaign promoting a lecture about sculpture at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts was blocked because Facebook’s censors mistakenly believed it was intended to influence an election in Ireland.

Similarly, Arts Japan 2020, an entity that highlights Japan-related cultural programs in the U.S., was unable to promote a post celebrating an award given by the emperor of Japan to an American arts curator. Facebook claimed the topic was of “national importance.” These harmless posts remain on Facebook in unpromoted form, but unpromoted content has a limited reach.

The problem is widespread. The Atlantic reported on Nov. 2 that Facebook’s election-security policies have caused it to block advertising campaigns from organizations including community centers, national parks and charities that serve wounded veterans.

Representatives of charities are often reluctant to register as political advertisers on Facebook because of privacy concerns. Facebook requires users to disclose significant personal information before promoting posts about politics or national issues. To be authorized to run such advertisements on behalf of my nonprofit organization, I would have to send Facebook my residential address, my Social Security number, and a photo of myself holding my passport or driver’s license. I’m loath to entrust any entity with all of that sensitive information—especially Facebook, which could use its facial-recognition software to match my personal information with photos of me that might appear online.

But suppose I did submit those items and was therefore allowed to promote political content. If I subsequently broke the rules, Facebook wouldn’t necessarily hold the nonprofit I represent responsible. Under Facebook’s policies, the person who operates an ad account is accountable for any ads placed by that account.

The only real protection Facebook’s identification requirements might provide is a guarantee that Facebook users can determine the true identity of the marketer responsible for a political advertisement. Or can they? A well-resourced advertiser with nefarious intent could simply hire a patsy (or use fake credentials) to pass Facebook’s screening process and establish a nominal presence at an American address.

As several reporters have recently discovered, Facebook allows many advertisers who pass its invasive screening process to run political ads under any identity they choose. A recent Vice article describes how Facebook approved political ads by reporters who pretended to be 100 different senators. And Business Insider was able to post political Facebook ads that purported to be from Cambridge Analytica.

In the name of election security, Facebook has implemented an opaque and shape-shifting definition of “issues of national importance” and an intrusive vetting process that is poorly enforced. These don’t protect users or the American public. Unless Facebook offers more transparency and accountability, determined marketers will remain able to circumvent the process. And despite benevolent gestures on Giving Tuesday, nonprofits and small businesses will continue to suffer under Facebook’s arbitrary restrictions.

Mr. Gallant, a social-media marketing consultant, is executive director of the Nuyorican Poets Cafe.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
Suddenly the LEFt is annoyed
« Reply #230 on: December 12, 2018, 05:25:43 AM »
what a coincidence that all this stuff is suddenly front and center news only because of Cambridge Analytica

The Left was happy to take money and look the other way when supporting oBama but as soon as the perception that  *they* were crossed  and suddenly this is a scandal that needs to be addressed.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12455
    • View Profile
Re: Suddenly the LEFt is annoyed
« Reply #231 on: December 12, 2018, 08:14:59 AM »
what a coincidence that all this stuff is suddenly front and center news only because of Cambridge Analytica

The Left was happy to take money and look the other way when supporting oBama but as soon as the perception that  *they* were crossed  and suddenly this is a scandal that needs to be addressed.

Just saying how would you like it if it happened to you doesn't substitute for when it really happens to them.

Everyone thought is was hip and cool that Obama people were experts at "data mining".  I allege they had nearly complete lists of welfare rolls, because their people work there and why wouldn't they, moral ethics?  AFSCME and Club for Growth have no overlap.  Now we know 63% of "non-citizen" residents are listed on the welfare rolls, all likely Democrats and great turnout enhancement opportunities if you don't mind a little law breaking.  Facebook got Obama's data miners to nearly everyone too and they can target it for left thinking Democrats like a whole foods store.  As ccp says, then Trump does it and now they care about data privacy.  Belated welcome.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile
Goolag memory hole-ing Hillary info
« Reply #234 on: December 17, 2018, 04:04:17 PM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
   
"How Totalitarian Regimes will take over social media"

Like the present state and stated goals of the Democratic Party

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17806
    • View Profile
I strongly suspected this
« Reply #237 on: December 19, 2018, 03:59:28 PM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
 I imagine we are all duped into signing off on this data "sharing" during our excursions on the net

you know their shysters with their stock options have it the fine print some where.

I don't use FB and would rather be dead then sign up to that little shits site

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
impressive though I don't understand it well
« Reply #243 on: December 23, 2018, 12:33:52 PM »
"The man turning China into a quantum superpower"

*Jian-Wei Pan, China’s “father of quantum”

I posted once before if I could come back to life again I would want to be  a great physicist .

This guy sounds amazing.

"1 and 0 simultaneously"  What??????

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-may-be-even-spookier-than-you-think/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50957
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10536
    • View Profile
Yes and the Turks already to move in where the US troops were in Syria and exactly where Kurdish fighters are.

Sickening how we screwed them over - again .

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile