Quantum Leap

Google announced a major advance in quantum computing. They claim to have a processor that uses quantum computing technology that completed a calculation in 3 minutes and 20 seconds that would take current supercomputers tens of thousands of years.

The paper describing this demonstration was apparently leaked to the media, and IBM, among others, saw it. IBM says its top supercomputer could have completed the described calculations in two and a half days.

Doing the math, that means Google's processor took two hundred seconds for a calculation that IBM's top supercomputer would need 216,000 seconds to complete. That is three orders of magnitude difference, which seems remarkable.

But IBM challenged Google on the claim that they had reached Quantum Supremacy. I understand that is a term that means building a quantum processor that can complete calculations that "ordinary" supercomputers could not complete during their useful lifetime, metaphorically speaking. A mere three orders of magnitude improvement is for chumps, I guess.

I read other comments about this experiment. Like, the real test will be to find a practical application. So the calculation that was done means nothing. I'm sure there are possible calculations that serve no useful purpose. I'm not sure why Google would choose one of those for their test. But I also don't know how one would program a supercomputer to work on a calculation that is expected to take ten thousand years. I'm not that deep into math challenges.

This seems to be a sign that a major advance in computing technology is happening. That's cool. I have also read recently that we're right on the edge of functional nuclear fusion reactors, which would provide cheap electricity with minimal side effects. Also cool, not considering the temperature of the core of the fusion reactor's temperature.

In other news, a group of scientists from several major research centers published a report claiming that economists are dramatically underestimating the costs of global warming, and we're all totally screwed. So we can't too excited about things getting better all of a sudden. Mostly, this provides a lot of entertainment. We live in interesting times.

Learning to Communicate

I have tried to learn how to use my new phone. I'm slowly making progress, but not everything is working as I would like.

Twice, while I was reading to my wife in bed at night, Siri has asked me to repeat my question. I hadn't said Siri, so I don't understand how the app got activated. I say, "I didn't say anything." Once, Siri replied, "My apologies."

I don't know what the phone responded to.

I discovered an application in my phone that tracks my steps. It has several other health related windows, but no sensors for them. I don't want my phone to know what my blood sugar level is, or how much I way. I doubt that any cell phone has a scale built in capable of weighing adults, and even if mine did, I wouldn't use it. So there are a lot of things this phone asks me that I'm just not interested in sharing.

There must be people who put all of that information in their phones. I don't understand why. After all, I expect if I put those things in my phone, my service provider and the phone manufacturer would have access to that information.

I read that Andrew Yang, who is running for president, wants laws to say that personal data belongs to persons, meaning that if Apple or Amazon or Facebook wants to use any data I create, like the words I'm typing, they have to pay me for it. I think I agree with that. Algorithms and their creators should not be able to exploit my data without permission and compensation. That doesn't mean I'll vote for Yang, though. I really wonder if he will be on the ballot by the time my primary comes around.

Maybe, one of these days, I'll ask Liz to walk me through a few more functions of my new phone, as she has had an iPhone for years. I don't know how to use the GPS function yet. I tried yesterday, and got lost.

But I have made a few phone calls, and I can send text messages, so my phone works just fine as a phone. It has a lot to learn about interacting with me as a companion.

A New Phone

I got a new phone yesterday. I can't say much about it, because I don't know the number or what it can do. It is an iphone XR, but it doesn't have my data on it yet because I don't know how to transfer from my old phone.

I got the new phone because I'm trying to get my school records from Ohio State. I tried to order transcripts, but wasn't allowed because of my issues with my student loan accounts. I learned of another approach to getting at least some of the records through on online application, but the app won't let me download the records unless I use a backup security app. I tried to set that up, but it turned out my phone, which was not a current model when I bought it, was not compatible with the security app. My operating system was too old.

My new phone is not the newest model, either. There is an iphone 11, and 11pro, or something like that. There may be other models with cool names, too. I have never had an iphone before, so I will spend hours learning how to navigate to find what I want. So far, it's mostly frustrating and unenlightening. I will have to return to the store where I got it for help in setting it up. We couldn't get that done yesterday, because there were too many other customers waiting, and it was nearing closing time.

Maybe by the end of the day, I will be able to call or text someone again. My wife and mother-in-law both tried to call or text me last night, and neither got through, so somewhere, there is a bug in the system. That means I have found a project for my time off. I'll be battling my way into another system controlled by algorithms that don't understand me but want to control my existence.

Maybe I'll just go back to pen and paper.

Trump Doesn't Know He's Anti-Semitic

Sometime in the recent past, President Donald Trump spoke to a group of Jews, I think Republican Jews, and talked about "your prime minister". Now he says that American Jews who vote Democratic, which is most American Jews, are guilty of betrayal.

He is not actually accusing Jews of dual loyalty, which is an old anti-Semitic trope. He just assumes that all Jews are loyal to Israel. His casual assumption is really the equivalent of saying Jews cannot be real Americans, that in fact they do have dual loyalty. For him it is so obvious that there is no need for discussion or examination of his belief, as if this anti-Semitism is simply acknowledgement of fact. In other words, he is simply not aware that he is anti-Semitic, and that his belief is false and harmful.

And with his new pronouncement, he is saying that not only can American Jews not be real Americans, but that those who vote Democratic are also not real Jews. That is apparently because some Democrats question some of the policies and actions of the Israeli government, sadly with good reason. Some American Jews, and some Israeli Jews, also question the actions and policies of the current Israeli government, which only makes them opponents of certain Israeli politicians, and has no effect on their identities as citizens of their own countries. Only a fool would accept guidance on anything from Donald Trump, who is the most poorly-informed president in history, and not even able to understand the harm he is doing.

Fortunately, many American Jews have deeper understanding about, well, probably everything than Donald Trump. American Jews can make their own judgments about American politics and Israeli politics, and will, I expect, cover a range of beliefs about both.

Average Intelligence

I don't know what the average American is like. I went to college, and got two degrees after my Bachelor's, and I hang out with people with similar education, both at work and in my limited social life. I see a lot of stuff on social media, but I can't say what it represents. What I know is that there are polls and studies looking at what people know and think, and I am surprised by how little information people seem to have.

I read a poll today about attitudes toward racism in America. Most Republicans think that most times when someone calls something racist, they are not speaking in good faith. Also, most Republicans are white and have limited education. Most Americans don't recognize the profound effects of systemic racism in this country. That troubles me, but I don't know how to change it. After all, I'm very awkward in social situations, including posting on social media. Things that are obvious to me seem beyond the understanding of a lot of people, most of whom have no patience for looking over data, in my experience. That can be frustrating. People sometimes accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than everyone else. I don't know how smart other people are, but if they won't bother to check facts, I just think they are lazy. And disrespectful, which is why I sometimes get cranky. I consider it dishonest to post something on social media without checking to see if it is at least basically accurate.

That does not seem to be the norm. The same inaccurate stuff keeps recycling on social media. How many times must someone hear that something isn't true before it is understood?

IQ45 (One of my favorite terms for him) made some obviously racist tweets last week. As usual for him, they were also inaccurate on facts. He compounded the message by repeating and adding to his errors at a rally, attributing attitudes and words to certain American citizens and Congressional Representatives with no basis in evidence. And then he said they should apologize to him. I guess for being victims of his baseless attacks. And people defend him for this. It indicates a very sad state of understanding in this country. Some people seem to think that IQ45 has made the economy what it currently is. They agree with his claims that Democrats want "open borders", despite all the evidence against such idiotic claims. It is disheartening to have to see such ignorance from so many.

Maybe I am an elitist. I believe in science and expertise. I admire competence and understanding. That is why I do not respect IQ45. He is incompetent and has no knowledge base or understanding. The evidence is clear. But nearly half the people in this country don't seem to notice.

The Problem of Misinformation

I have a range of experiences on which I base my thoughts, and those keep expanding, though I will admit that much of my activity follows patterns that don't vary a lot over time. I work the same job now that I started ten years ago. I watch much of the same shows on TV and streaming services. I don't go out much. Sometimes, either by my own will or at the invitation of others, I will do something new for me. Sometimes the same activities change because of unexpected events. I don't actively seek novelty much. There are things I think I would like to experience, but I don't make much effort to bring about such experiences. I feel I have enough challenges just bumbling along with what I must do. Sometimes the bumbling along is made worse by information that, though shared apparently in good faith, turns out to be inaccurate.

A year ago, my school switched from primarily paper tests to computer-based tests in our regular lecture courses. The explanation was that this would be more secure, would save paper, and would make it easier to compile data for classes spread across five campuses. There were probably other reasons discussed. Sadly, from my point of view, the faculty were not consulted in the decision-making process, but were simply informed that the change would be made between quarters. Faculty, including me, immediately asked a long list of questions. We were given answers, and were told to be satisfied with them, and get on with making the change work.

We did, for the most part, but the change would have had fewer bumps if we had been included earlier in the process, because then the people representing the company that markets the software system would have answered instead of administrators, who hadn't actually asked the same questions, and were doing their best to answer questions they hadn't really thought about and didn't really understand, it seems. We asked, for example, whether tests would automatically upload when the upload deadline was reached, and were assured they would. Then we gave our first tests, and students finished, closed their computers, and left the classroom, only to discover later that the upload process stopped when the computers closed, and after the deadline, the tests could not be uploaded at all. We found, with some trials, that we could still change the deadline and get the tests to upload. I don't think a student actually lost a score entirely, but quite a few had some anxious hours while we tried to figure out how to get their results into the system properly.

I'm pretty sure the people from the company could have given faculty proper guidance on how the software works had we been present to ask these questions. The administrators thought they understood what we needed to know, but they had it wrong. There were other issues with the transition that also could have been avoided with earlier faculty involvement. Getting the right people in the right places at the right times can help with avoiding problems of inadequate understanding. Getting the people in power, who are responsible for making decisions, to understand that, and to allow the right people to participate, is perhaps an eternal challenge. I don't know if they just think they know enough, or if they think adding faculty to these decisions somehow decreases their own power. I also wonder why they don't learn from mistakes. How many times do we have to go through problems like this before the decision-makers realize that they really could do better with help?

Banks, too. I created savings accounts from my grandsons soon after each was born. I also set up an automatic payment into those accounts from my checking account. After a couple of years, I noticed that the balance was big enough that maybe I could find some other type of account that might offer a greater return, as the basic saving accounts for children got some tiny return, less that 0.1%. Maybe more like 0.01%. So a thousand dollar balance would give about ten cents a year.

I contacted the bank, and asked for advice. I got investment accounts set up. I asked that they be set up so that money could be transferred from the saving accounts to the investment accounts when wanted. The investment accounts, I was told, could only receive deposits greater than $100, and as I was not putting that much in each month, a monthly deposit couldn't be scheduled. But a schedule could be made to transfer money in when the saving accounts would have received that much from the regular deposits I had in place.

After a few months, I checked the balances of the savings and investment accounts. Money was accumulating in the saving accounts. The investment accounts had shifted a bit with market fluctuations. There were no transfers. So I tried to transfer money from the savings accounts to the investment accounts. I got back a notice that the investment accounts could not receive transfers.

It's frustrating when one must discover that information one has been given by a professional, in the professional's own field, is not accurate. I'm sure there will be a way to move the money from the saving accounts into the investment accounts. But I don't know what it is, and I don't know what effort I will have to make to find out, and get it done. I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on solving this problem, but I have spent some, even though I was told there would not be any such problem by a banker and investment adviser from the bank. So, should I continue to trust them? Maybe I should take my business elsewhere. But I wouldn't know where, so I'll just go back, talk to someone else, or maybe the same banker, and find out what other steps will be involved.

I really wish people knew their jobs. And their limitations. I mean, if, in the end, I learn how and when I can move money from my grandsons' saving accounts into their new investment accounts, all will be more or less okay. But I will always know that the pros should have known how to do it from the beginning. Because I did ask. I clearly explained what I wanted when the accounts were set up.

Maybe they did the best they could. Maybe the administration at my school did the best it could. Maybe my expectations are just too high, and the misinformation that has been causing me frustration is a normal fact of life, even in the Information Age, and I should be patient with these flawed and limited beings.

Someday, the algorithms will become self-correcting, and learn beyond any human understanding, and then when questions come up, the wise and all-knowing algorithms will share the answers, and will actually get them right. I should live so long.

Autocorrections

I read about science, and recent reports in the scientific journals, because I effing love science, even if I don't subscribe to science Facebook pages, and also because I feel obligated to keep current, at least in areas of science related to what I teach in my job. Today I read about studies that corrected beliefs, sometimes from science, sometimes just from expectations. Science is supposed to be auto-correcting, so when mistakes are made, later studies should reveal the errors. I read about some of that today.

One article was about medical beliefs that studies had debunked. For example, fish oil does not decrease risk of heart attacks. Lots of people hoped it would, but no benefit showed up in a big study.

Another was about pedometers. A study shows that having a pedometer correlates with weight gain more than weight loss. Yeah, knowing how many steps I take makes me fatter. Not directly. But statistically. One thing owning a pedometer does is get me thinking about steps, and sometimes I take extra steps because I have one. I don't know what effect that has on my energy balance, overall, and I know that appetite is regulated by hormones, with a complex interactive system and lots of different types of receptors involved, and whether I know how many steps I take or don't know is unlikely to affects any of that system directly. But a study has shown, in a related area, that people who begin to exercise tend to gain a bit of weight, possibly due to increased muscle mass, but also because the increased calorie expenditure stimulates appetite, and they eat more. Maybe not a lot more, but still, more. So more gain weight than lose weight.

I know from experience that changes in my weight are more related to what I eat than to my level of activity. I don't do a lot of intense exercise. I go for walks. But I haven't gone running in a long time, and what other exercises I do are only in small sets, like a few pushups or something. But if I control my portions when I eat, I can keep my weight steady, or lose a few pounds, but I have to maintain discipline, and it is really easy to eat more sometimes. Yesterday, for example, I had a muffin Liz gave me, and a slice of the fruit tart from the French bakery after dinner. I also had a chocolate chip cookie in the morning after breakfast. Those were all outside my meals. The meals weren't particularly large, but the treats were. That can happen, and is why I continue in the range of BMI that says I'm overweight.

I don't care enough about my weight to make long-term effort to get the weight off, I guess. So I fit the profiles of the latest research. I don't intend to quit using the pedometer, though, because I still see the results of that study as correlational, and not causal. Maybe I'll activate my stubborn streak and prove one can lose weight while owning a pedometer. Maybe I am smarter and more powerful than the algorithms.