Shor's algorithm is the quintessential example, but there are other algorithms (mostly graph algorithms) that are NP and hard would be very efficient on a quantum computer.
But why sell hardware then? From customer perspective, wouldn't buying racks from Dell or HP be more stable procurement-wise and equally manageable by the excellent Oxide software stack (if such thing exists)?
This is akin to asking why not install iOS on a lower cost, easily available Android phone. Much of the benefit is only available if one provider designs the hardware and software as one. The complete elimination of the security-nightmare UEFI layer is a good example.
It’s not like they get magical components or firmware. All it takes is supporting specific rack configurations from top vendors. Or, if you want more lockdown, reselling custom-ordered racks with your software on top.
they do get custom firmware, for example there is no hardware vendor in the world that can supply a server that could start an AMD CPU without a UEFI the way we require. Supporting the existing hardware out there would necessitate worsening the Oxide software to compensate. Trust me, if this were possible to achieve on commodity hardware, it would be done on commodity hardware. Same reason AWS, GCP, and Azure make their own hardware- there are advancements that can't be made on commodity gear. The cabled backplane is another good example, it can't be done on commodity gear and eliminates days of setup and manual servicing/configuration errors.
Something that comes up frequently on their podcast - often in passing, I'm not sure I remember a specific episode to refer you to - is the woes of trying to support/debug commodity hardware. Think waiting for Dell to get back to your support ticket about a BIOS issue. Or being told "well you're the only person with this problem, so it must be your fault sorry!" This seems to come especially from Bryan's experience at Joyent. The way they describe "Oxide value" is being able to own as much of the stack as possible so that they can debug things down to the lowest level possible.
We don’t have to fully outlaw gambling or other forms of high risk entertainment, but we absolutely should be outlawing the pervasive advertising these companies are doing. You can’t enjoy sports these days without dodging tons of ads for betting platforms
I haven't looked much into the Canadian levels, but I assume they are similar to the US. Some stats might not be quite right, but...
Something like .15% of the US population skydive a year. Almost none of them die.
I've seen estimates that over 5% of the US population gamble at a "problem" level and about 0.5% to 1% are outright addicted. About 20% of those addicted have a suicide attempt.
Americans who skydive in the US will be about the same number of Americans who attempt suicide due to gambling issues. Skydiving is quite safe so the death rate is so minimal.
This is a terrible analogy. Skydiving isn't addictive, the risk falls on the participant, and a skydiving company doesn't make more money from the customers it hurts.
Gambling apps get a large share of their revenue from the small group of users who can't stop. Meanwhile they cap the bets of people who win too much, so arguing that "betting is just entertainment in a free market" is false on its face. These are predatory companies and they should absolutely be regulated as such.
Gambling disorder is a recognized diagnosis in both the DSM-5 [1] and the WHO's ICD-11 [2], with a $14 billion annual social cost [3] in the US alone. Show me the equivalent DSM entry and social cost for "skydiving addiction".
The word "addiction" has an actual clinical meaning. It's not just vibes. The person has lost control over the behavior, and they keep doing it despite harm. There's no "Skydivers Anonymous".
With gambling, spouses and kids lose savings, debts don't get paid, and the public bears the cost of the ER visits in the headline. Gambling externalizes the costs in a way that skydiving doesn't. That’s the difference.
> Yes they do.
An injured skydiver is a net loss for a skydiving company: insurance, lawsuits, lost business, bad press. You gave no evidence for how they'd profit. You just said "Yes they do". Cue Hitchens's Razor: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
reply