I've been a computer programmer since I first started typing in program
listings on a Commodore Vic 20 when I was about 8. My hobbies include
electronics, CNC manufacturing, photography, beer and winemaking.
I live with my wife, cat, and lots of left-over parts from unfinished
projects in Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
apropos of nothing, steam has 47743 windows games, 17671 mac os x games, and 11491 linux games. That means only 13% of steam games are on Mac and not on Linux. Nevermind that 63% are on neither, only on Windows..
"On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows: Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent) Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent) Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent) Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent) " -- wikipedia so yes let us explore the intersection of subsidies and energy sources in the US and decide whether the story is "Nuclear reactors can't survive without government handouts".
Where this line of reasoning falls down for me is when WHCK is mentioned. As this summary says, HLK is for Windows 10 and WHCK is for Windows 8.1. There's no reason in the world that Google would prepare new hardware to run Windows 8.1 on. So why make fixes for WHCK? If developers on the project have decided there's some general implementation quality that is bettered by WHCK even if there's no goal for end users to boot Windows 8.1, the same could just as well apply to HLK's usefuless to improve code quality.
UBE is worse than current benefits such as unemployment and "child allowance" [a term unfamiliar to this American], assuming you set UBE low enough that it is below your poverty level [else how can it increase poverty level by 3%? Having a true UBE should set your poverty level to 0%!] and cut the existing benefits to create the new, which the author says UBE "would have to be funded". I'm glad the hidden assumption is out in the open in this summary of the research.
"The fact that this mistake happens in figure 1 of the paper is very unfortunate, because the paper just keeps building and building on this figure. The one initial mistake poisons all of the presented details. (The k=2 case works, though!) That being said, as we will see by the end of this trilogy of posts, the high-level conclusions of the paper do survive the correction of the mistake.". I wish I understood all this quantum computing stuff!