Quantum Computing and Certainty

 It seems now that Quantum Computing will be a thing in the future, but the stumbling block is outside interference introducing errors into the system. The problem with QC is that it is not absolute. By it's nature Quantum Computing is a bit variable as bits change states.

So, if you run a calculation a couple of times, you may arrive at two different answers, as errors creep into the system.

The issue then, is you have to run a calculation a number of times to firm up any answer. Call the first few goes as uncertain, then as the Quantum computer arrives at answers, eventually it should come away with a result with a certain degree of certainty.

Whether the Quantum computer can perform those numerous calculations and get the result faster than an absolute digital computer is anyone's guess. I mean, how many times do you have to try a puzzle to solve it?

I think that Quantum Computing will have to find a niche. Most likely where you are doing computations that are happy with a degree of uncertainty, or to put it another way where you can reach a level of certainty that is sufficient to do the job.

It's a pretty human way of doing things, because with training we can complete tasks to a high, but not absolute degree of accuracy and still complete the task. For instance we can almost instantly or instinctively estimate the trajectory of a ball to a certain degree in sports and make contact. We just need to figure out what uses Quantum Computing can be put to. 

Drivers

Looks like the exploitation of an industry has finally ended. I'm talking about Truck drivers. 

Professional drivers have been relegated to no more than minimum wage wankers. As with most industries including I.T. that I used to work in, big corporations have moved to dominate the market and then depress wages by importing cheap foreign labour.

Coupled with a dehumanisation of the driving profession, despite the professional status and training required for the job, it's no wonder that people are reluctant to do the job.

The amount of training they go through and the responsibilities of the job should afford them professional status, but instead they are treated like dirt. Just a means of shipping stuff between A and B.

Facilities are not provided for them at distribution centres, there's very rarely even a toilet they can use. 

But long hours and low wages just forces people out of the job. There are more specialist transport roles, which are paid well and provide interesting work, but they are very few and far between.

The corporations are reaping what they sow. If you don't invest in an industry, don't be surprised when that industry collapses. 

When truckers can drive a van delivering Amazon parcels in the local area for the same money, get home at a reasonable hour every night and not have the responsibility and regulations of driving a 40-ton truck, why wouldn't they switch.

Couple the factors above with the reduction of driving standards in the UK, you add even more reasons why drivers don't want to do the job. I used to drive all over the country, but in the past 10 years I've hated it, because I know if I drive long distance I can be guaranteed to experience at least one incident where I have to avoid an inconsiderate driver. If your livelihood depends on not hitting or getting hit by other drivers, then the poor standard of driving is just another reason not to bother.

Along with the lack of or poor quality of facilities, the rip-off prices charged by motorway services for overnight stays, the risks of getting hijacked if you park on laybys, the long hours away from family, the lack of appreciation of the rules regarding driver's hours, the lack of consideration at distribution centres, the risk of overloading of trailers by clients, the list goes on as to why you wouldn't want to do the job.

It's not just about improving wages. Corporations need to understand they are dealing with humans, not robots. Tesla hasn't introduced a self-driving autonomous truck yet...

Labour Party: Circling the Drain.

 It seems a new batch of infighting has broken out ion the Labour party, with a new push by the loony left to oust Kier Starmer.

I know I hate the bloke and all he stands for, but he is a sort of gatekeeper against the far left loonies in the party. 

Sadly I think this time, he will not prevail.

This could well be the end for the Labour party. We really need a party of and for the working class that has sensible, credible, workable, reasonable policies that people will vote for. 

The Liberals cast themselves adrift and set sail for the far left sunset years ago, with their objection against the Brexit majority.

It seems the Labour party are loading up the ship with supplies to follow the same route.

As a party they have not grasped that to get into power, you first have to have policies that appeal to the majority. Having fashionable virtue-signalling but ultimately unworkable and unpopular policies will just consign them to the political wastelands.

Kier Starmer's "Cervix-Gate" incident at the weekend just sums up how out of touch the Far Left are. Only a woman has fucking Cervix you prick Starmer. Say it, it's Scientific Fact. A bloke that gets an op is not a Woman in the scientific sense. If a bloke has the op and has the appearance of a woman, then by all means he can be afforded the title of woman in a honorific way, but he still isn't a woman in the scientific sense.

Ta-Ta Labour, you gave us some laughs along the way, but your time is up....

Scum...

 Yes, Angela Rayner, the MP for my old home town and her calling the Tories "Scum". Exactly the rabid, partisan rhetoric that put me off Labour when I lived up there. This type of Labour member are literally lunatics, there is a group madness amongst them that make them vehemently oppose anyone that doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

I'd had enough of them back in the Michael Foot era. 

To be honest, the Labour party are scum for not providing a credible opposition to the Tories and letting them romp away with the election and giving them a huge majority. 

Had Labour been a bit more moderate, they might have taken more seats and been able to provide an opposition. But Labour is rife with people that are so thick, so blinkered, so vitriolic , so out of touch and so far to the left that no-one will vote for them.

A classic example of this was the Kier Starmer interview yesterday when he was asked if the phrase "Only women have a Cervix" is transphobic. Here's a hint Kier: It's not. It's actually a statement of scientific fact.

But hey, let's not let science get in the way of ideology eh?

This is the sort of Leftist Lunacy that is losing Labour votes. Supporting the misogynistic take-over of the female space by the male-to-female trans lobby is wrong-headed. But that's Luney Labour for you. 

Consider this for a second: Starmer can't say that only females have Cervixes. What else is he hamstrung by ideology over?

Would he oppose China? Would he sever our relationship with the USA, would he take us out of NATO? With nutters like these in the party, absolutely anything is possible and it's no wonder no-one will vote for them.  

Nobody wants a rabid dog.