Relocation is a lateral popular look at New Scientist on the latest news in science and technological. You can submit items that can be enhanced by comments by sending an e-mail to e-mails@newScientist.com
Dog computer
Sometimes the comments receive an email with such an impactful opening line, we must essentially include it. Therefore, we went up when Elliot Baptist sent an email to say: “I thought that the comments could like to know, if the comments do not already do so that a well-trained New Zealand dog has exceeded quantum computers.”
Elliot highlighted an article preparation for two cryptographers, Peter Gutmann at the University of Auckland and Stephan Neuhaus at the University of Applied Sciences in Zurich, on the Eprint cryptology archives. This is the long-term effort to create a quantum computer that can de factor an extremely large number-that is, identify two numbers that can be multiplied together to obtain the target number.
This is an important challenge because many encryption methods are based on huge numbers that are difficult to take into account. If someone builds a quantum computer that can ensure that large numbers can quickly, many servers and apparently secure transactions will suddenly become unsatisfied. There were milestones on this subject: in 2001, IBM built a computer that could factoris 15 (5 × 3, if you were not sure), and in 2012, they went to 21 (7 × 3). In 2019, a start-up called Zapata said that it could take into account 1,099,551,473,989.
Gutmann and Neuhaus, however, are relaxing about the future of encryption. They argue that many of the quantum factors are pass-around. “Similar to the magic of the scene, the exercise during the response to a new quantum factor announcement is not only to marvel at the trick, but to try to understand where the sleight of hand has happened,” they write.
This is why they decided to reproduce quantum factors using less advanced forms of technology: in particular, “an 8 -bit domestic computer, an abacus and a dog”. The method using the domestic computer took them two pages to describe, so we will leave it as an exercise for the reader. The Abacus method is simpler, although it requires an abacus with 616 columns for the biggest numbers.
Now let’s move on to the dog -based method. To reproduce the original factories of 15 and 21, the researchers simply formed a dog to be bark three times. “We checked this by taking a recently calibrated, scratching reference dog, illustrated in Figure 6, and making it bark three times, thus simultaneously making factors of 15 and 21”, they write. “This process was not as simple as it appeared for the first time because Scribble behaves very well and almost never moves away. Having the quantum factoring requires that its owner plays with him with a bullet in order to encourage him to bark.”
Elliot says that he is “not qualified to comment on the validity of the argument”, and that the comments want to add that we can be even less qualified. All readers who really understand quantum IT and encryption are invited to write and explain what is happening on Earth. The comments will probably not understand the answer, but we will manage the explanations in front of one of the cats of feedback and will see what they do.
Robotic responses
The report of the feedback of the “electrifying” and sex conference with next year robots, which will be held in Zhejiang, China, has drawn some emails, some of which have crossed our filters.
Tim Stevenson stressed that we neglected to mention a key detail, which “would have been the most revealing … the costs to participate”. Comments are nothing but diligent, so we have revisited the conference website and discovered that it costs $ 105.98 to “book a place”. We suspect that real tickets can cost a little more, but we did not want to register to find out.
Meanwhile, Pamela Manfield has reduced the pursuit of the pursuit: “Any university organization or other organization funded by the government which pays to send to anyone in its staff … should have its reduction in funding.” The comments do not disagree, but, on the other hand, the administration of Donald Trump reduces all the funding of the search anyway, then perhaps the point is theoretical.
Seasonal injuries
Nicole Rogowski writes to highlight a 2023 study which had somehow escaped our attention. She suggested that it was an example of “no shit, sherlock” – a study that goes in huge lengths to demonstrate something obvious – but comments do not agree, because you could have force us under extreme constraint to disseminate declarations with obvious consonance for 100 years and we would never have found this. The study is called “penalty fractures: the price of a merry Christmas”, which, as Nicole says, “speaks of himself”.
The researchers explored if the penile fractures – technically “the rupture of the albugine tunic surrounding the cave corpus”, as “announced by an audible crack” – were more common at certain times of the year, using data from 2005 to 2021 from Germany. Apparently, the Christmas period (December 24 to 26) and the summer show higher rates of pennite fractures, but curiously not the New Year period (December 31 to January 2). The authors suggest that “Christmas could be a risk factor for penalty fractures due to the” Christmas spirit “linked to the intimacy and the euphoria of these days of holly.”
The newspaper concludes: “The penis fractures last Christmas occurred more often. This year to save us from tears, we will not do something special. ”
All my apologies for all striking faults: the comments wrote this whole section curled up in a fetal position.
Do you have a story for comments?
You can send stories to the comments by e-mail to feedback@newScientist.com. Please include your personal address. This week’s comments can be seen on our website.
