The blotches come from biasing in the sensor, some of these patterns were caused by the manufacturing process, others come from the mounting inside the camera and others come from environmental factors. When you get near the noise floor of the sensor, these kinds of defects can become visible.

In order to fix this, take a whole bunch of flat files and dark files. I like to have a set I prepared one time, but also create a set each time I start a session. It doesn’t take long and helps with environmental noise. Then stack away at your data in order to boost the signal to noise ratio. These kinds of things should disappear if you do it right.

I use Arch BTW.

Like just huge arches instead of windows or even doors, Arch is all you need.

I’ll be honest, I don’t actually know what all the physics in those papers means. That’s not my job and not my expertise.

Well maybe not the right dude to ask then?

My 2 cents: we’ll never get to any sort of practical quantum computer size. As size increases, decoherence becomes a bigger problem. This is currently fixed by having more qubits to compensate. But as the size grows, the amount of qubits needed just to compensate for decoherence grows faster. So there’s a practical limit on how large of a machine is possible. And it isn’t like a smaller machine is just slower, it actually simply can’t do any of the cryptography breaking stuff.

From my understanding decoherence is a fundamental part of reality, which can’t be helped. But who knows, there might be some breakthrough that allows for it to work. It might also be impossible given the laws of nature. And what I gather it’s also impossible to prove it can’t be done.

So that’s why quantum computers have been in this limbo state for years now. They might be just around the corner or they might never exist.

In the security world people are worried stuff is stored today, for it to be decrypted in 20 years time. So there is a push to think about this and take precautions. This seems smart, not because they think quantum computers will exist, but just as a precaution in case it turns out they do.

Very good! Your spidey senses are working perfectly. Hey I want to comment this calculation, why don’t I move it into a function so the name can explain what it does. Good call!

Sometimes the algorithm is inlined for performance, sometimes it’s a class with a bunch of functions that as a whole is primarily based on an algorithm, so comments might make sense in those cases. Most of the times it’s a library, so the name of the library kinda gives it away and hopefully has good documentation as well.

Asking an LLM to add comments is actually pretty much the worst thing you can do. Comments aren’t meant to be documentation and LLMs have a habit of writing documentation in the comments. Documentation is supposed to be in the documentation, not in the code. LLMs are often trained on things like tutorials, where super obvious statements are commented to allow people to learn and follow along. In actual code you absolutely do not do this, obvious statements should be obvious by themselves. At best it’s extra work to read and maintain the comments for obvious statements, at worst they are incorrect and misleading. I’ve worked on systems where the comments and the code weren’t in line with each other and it was a continual guess if the comment is the way it was supposed to work, or if the code is correct and the comment wrong.

So when do you actually add comments? That’s actually very hard, something people argue about all the time and a bit of an art form to get right. For example if I have some sort of complex calculation, but it’s based on a well known algorithm, I might comment the name of that algorithm. That way I can recognize it myself right away and someone that doesn’t know it can look it up right away. Another good indicator for comments are magic numbers. It’s often smart to put these in constants, so you can at least name them, but a small little comment to indicate why it’s there and the source can be nice. Or when there is a calculation and there’s a +1 for example in there somewhere, one might ask why the +1, then a little comment is nice to explain why.

Comments should also serve like a spidey sense for developers. Whenever you are writing comments or have the urge to add some comments somewhere, it might be an indicator the code is messy and needs to be refactored. Comments should be short and to the point, whenever you start writing sentences, either start writing documentation or look at the code why it’s required to explain so much and how to fix that.

Another good use for comments is to warn away instincts for future devs. For example in a system I worked on there is a large amount of code that seems like it’s duplicate. So a new dev might look at it and see a good place to start refactoring and remove the duplicated code. However the duplication was intentional for performance reasons, so a little comment saying the dupe is intentional is a good idea.

I’ve also seen comments used to describe function signatures, although most modern languages have official ways of doing that these days. These also might border on documentation, so I’d be careful with that.

LLMs also have a habit of writing down responses to prompts in the comments. For example the LLM might have written some code, you say: Hey that’s wrong, we shouldn’t set x to y, we should set it to z. And the LLM writes a comment like // X now set to Z as requested. These kinds of comments make no sense to people reading the code in the future.

Keep in mind comments are there to make it easier for the next guy to work on the code, and often that next guy is you. So getting it right is important and hard, but very much worth while. What I like to do is write code one day and then go back and read it the next day or a few days later. And not the commit, with the diff and the description, the actual files beginning to end. When I think something is weird or stands out, I’ll go back and edit the code and perhaps add comments.

IMHO LLMs are terrible at writing code, it’s often full of mistakes and oversights, but one of the worst parts is the comments. I can tell code was AI generated right away by the comments and those comments being present are a good indicator the “dev” didn’t bother to actually read and correct the code.

Imagine spending trillions on your war machine for decades and when you actually go to war the basics like food logistics aren’t there. That’s just sad…

Counterpoint, and hear me out on this, we could force them to give up most of their family wealth (mostly gotten over the backs of the people and slavery) and make anything remotely like monarchy illegal. Have them earn their living like the rest of us plebs.

Putting these kinds of people on a pedestal is pathetic.