I may be missing something, but if there is no competitive pressure/monopolistic market, why would these businesses need the excuse of inflation/cost increases to increase their prices? Wouldn't we expect prices to have gone up before inflation?
Or is this a specific criticism of a regulatory blind spot for reigning in market power? Monopolies can get away with price increases now, but they wouldn't normally?
The argument is that they had market power before, but were afraid to exercise it for political reasons or because they feared enforcement action. Now, with inflation, the company has an excuse to raise prices, but now they're raising them only partly due to increased costs, and partly as an exercise of their market power.
Do other QM interpretations predict that quantum computers wouldn't be able to benefit from superposing N qubits over 2^N (possible) output states? As far as I understand, it's not just Copenhagen that allows for this.
Would an interpretation need to reject Bell's theorem to get there? Or could it not include superposition but still keep all of Bell's theorem?
Rovelli’s work on relational QM suggests to me that superposition-as-real in the Copenhagen interpretation is false, a misunderstanding of how to incorporate the observer into the equation.
Once the observer (or the affected system, same thing, in the end) is incorporated, a lot of the things about superposition that needed interpretation disappear.
Read Helgoland for more.
(My physics degree was a long time ago and my math is quite out of date. While Rovelli doesn’t discuss QC in the book, his take on what superposition is not has strong implications for QC AFAICT.)
I assume fabrication refers to semiconductor fabs, not factories assembling computers together. None of the world's most advanced semiconductor fabs are in China, and whether they can catch up to TSMC/Samsung remains to be seen.
Territorial disputes are a problem for NATO membership, especially wrt article 5. Even if Taiwan gave up any claims to the Chinese mainland or other disputed territories, China's claims of sovereignty of the island could justifiably be enough to deny membership. On top of that, NATO is explicitly a European organization, with no member countries outside the European area besides USA and Canada.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm
On my Thinkpad x13 there was an option to use "Linux sleep" or something like that in the uefi (bios?) Settings. I think this just gives it the normal sleep behavior, and definitely reduced how often my laptop would come out of my backpack hot and on low battery (running Linux)
As a poor college student, I was surprised hearing the stores I went to described as fast fashion. For me, thrift stores or hand me downs were the sensible choice for clothes, and h&m or forever21 were splurges for $30 pants or whatever. Obviously the price points and quality that these fast fashion brands output don't lend themselves to being deliberate, long term "investments", but spending twice as much on pants that I was already hesitant to buy was unthinkable.
I also think buying some chinos or button down shirts at these places made it a lot cheaper to get business casual work clothes as I transitioned from fast food/retail to actual internships etc. I think it's really good for young people or people turning their life around to have very low barriers to entry when it comes to "looking respectable" or fitting in with the workplace as they grow, and fast fashion helped do that for me (and some of this could be addressed by loosening dress codes if you're hiring college students/young people/whatever).
Housing isn't finite, if Americans are willing to spend money to increase the value of Mexican housing, Mexican builders/government can build more housing to take advantage of the increased demand. I don't see much reason why any country would need to ban foreign investment, especially when supply is artificially constrained by unjustifiable regulation (true of western US and Canada, no idea if true of Mexico)
Because building houses is illegal. Whenever any politician says they want to build more affordable housing, what they mean is that the government is currently working hard to ensure new housing doesn’t get built, but maybe we should work less hard at that.
I know anta sports (Chinese) owns Arc'teryx and Salomon (and other brands as well), which are both big deals in very niche parts of outdoors companies (mountaineering/climbing and trail running/skiing respectively) but I don't think there's any single Chinese company that owns all the outdoor brands, unless anta is owned by some other company. Luxottica, the eyeglass company gp referred to is also Italian, not French (afaik), and their stranglehold was weakening with online retailers breaking in (last I checked was ~5 years ago, this might have regressed since).
The more interesting/disgusting part is that they own EyeMed, so for many people they also get your insurance premium, and then also what you pay for glasses or whatever.
I think that's a fair description of the achievements made so far, but there are some quantum simulations that would be worthwhile or even groundbreaking to simulate (and it's possible that quantum computing is the only way to handle large quantum simulations). My guess is that we're a ways off from them, and even further off from any impressive integer factorizing/cryptography breaking quantum computers (but those predictions are basically worthless).
I'm definitely not an expert in the field, but I read lecture notes by Scott Aarsonson that referenced research by Microsoft that looked into nitrogen fixation specifically as a (potentially) achievable simulation with a (potentially) massive impact.
This website is incredibly helpful for quick simulation. My favorite design detail is that the circuits are stored in the url, allowing easy bookmarking or sharing of some specific circuit.
Or is this a specific criticism of a regulatory blind spot for reigning in market power? Monopolies can get away with price increases now, but they wouldn't normally?