honeyed_coffee

>I'm reading that as the distributions that are seen are not stable. It may be that you got 30% this time, but 40% next time. On the exact same setup. (Obviously making up numbers.) Yes, you know that the other side saw something, but that is obviously useless.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your percentages statement completely, but when the parties have entangled states, these inconsistencies will match on each side under the assumption that their measurement choice is the same.

> Framing I saw was more of a truth table like where B/C have known states they can be in that each lead to a known distribution of outcomes. It was not clear that the known distribution was only an observed distribution.

If the states are locally known to the parties, they'd still have to perform a statistical run of experiments as before. The choice of measurements would be key in distinguishing a classical from a quantum correlation

>The question is, how rapidly does the "spooky" distance change happen? I get that it would not be communication between A and B or C. I similarly get that you could not coordinate between B and C. But, from all of the framings I've seen so far, I don't understand why the change between B and C is not faster than speed of light.

It's because measurements at B do not convey any information to C while the measurements are performed and vice versa. Unless B calls C to inform them of the choice of measurement setting, C will not know the measurement outcome at B's side. This is true even if they know that they share entangled states prior to prior to performing measurements.

> Edit: Also, to add, my understanding is that they are not "getting angles" per se, but would be seeing distributions. Which is why you would need more than 1 particle, as it were. So, you would say of the X I have recorded, 30% have been blue, 70% have been green. I suppose the concern is that you have no way of knowing when the "100%" mark is done until after classical communication, such that it is impossible to know what the final distribution you are measuring is? Effectively?

There has to be post processing of data where they drop the results of rounds where their measurement choices don't match. This is important because of what's called non commuting measurements. Measurements in one setting don't give us any information about measurement outcome in another setting. So effectively at one end, they have to record their measurement choice and corresponding outcomes of said measurement. And when comparing the data, the participants only have to keep the outcomes of rounds where the measurement choice is the same at both end

The spooky part occurs when two parties who share this entangled state know what measurement to perform. If the measurement choice aligns for both parties, their outcomes can be correlated precisely. If the measurement choices are not aligned, the outcomes are also random

Factorio is actually quite fun. There have been "upgrades" of factorio off late, Satisfactory I think.

> There's the other thing: some things simply don't need automation

I agree. Automation makes sense if a larger section of the task is abstracted away as a function. However, with note-taking and such, it really depends on the end goal. If there is a scenario wherein some report needs to be submitted, note-taking apps have the potential to reduce time taken produce the report, relative to hand-written notes.

Honestly, I don't understand the point of internet connected fridges