Apparently they found a solution.
In 2026, GTM added enhanced server-side tagging containers that run on Google Cloud or your own infrastructure, sending data to ad platforms via server-to-server APIs rather than browser requests. This bypasses ad blockers entirely while maintaining GDPR compliance through first-party data collection.
The data Is sourced from Meta. Possibly it is a bit inflated, since they sell the service, but I imagine they know what they sell.
To be fair, I’m not too interested in that number itself; the article is rather interesting since it broadly goes in depth into why and how tracking pixels are used and what is the economy behind them.
How is this legal?
No, regarding breaking encryption, it can definitely be used. Algorithms to do that already exist. We are missing a large enough computer for that to be feasible, but once it’s available everything which is encrypted with a non quantum safe algorithm can be decrypted.
Luckily they already developed encryption algorithms which should not be broken by quantum computers.
Regarding the working of the computer, yes you can see it a bit as rather than having a bit on or off you can have intermediate values as well. However qbits can also be “linked” to each other. As such you don’t really work on individual qbits but rather on the overall state of the system: changing one qbit will change the value of other ones as well.
Then also you have to be careful about measurement: if you want to read the result you’ll have to measure the qbits, doing that will change the state of the system and you have to account for that.
However, I’m not an expert in quantum computers. I have not studied them or worked on them. Most I know is from bar talks with physicists.
Finally a good example of a project which should, and does, use the WTFPL.
I’m afraid you did not read the message I wrote or you did not understand it.
A quantum computer is absolutely not equivalent to a supercomputer. There are calculations you can do in a quantum computer which you can not do in a supercomputer, most calculations which run on a supercomputer can not run on a quantum computer. In theory you can run any traditional algorithm on a quantum computer, in practice it is not feasible: you’d end up having a huge quantum computer with billions of qbits and still run slower than a single GPU.
New equations are needed to run that kind of calculations on quantum computers. We have algorithms to solve graph problems on quantum computers, but those equations can not be expressed as a graph. Such algorithms do not exist yet.
In computational chemistry there are basically two types of simplifications: quantum chemistry, which uses the born Oppenheimer simplification, and classical approximations, which use classical physical equations.
None of the two methodologies can be replicated directly with quantum computers. You can not take the Hartree Fock equation and the methodologies used to solve that equation and solve them in the same way on a quantum computer.
Ideally, the option I have seen would be to encode the molecule itself in the computer. This would broadly mean something like each qbit represents an electron of the molecule. Then you somehow connect the qbits in a way in which they behave like the molecule does. In this way you do not have to solve equations, but rather just measure the end state of the system.
However, each carbon atom has 12 electrons and a protein has tens of thousands of carbon atoms. This places the minimum amount of qbits for encoding such a system in the hundreds of thousands, whiteout accounting for error correction.
However, the problem lies in the amount of qbits. Even if you were to build a computer with a large enough number of qbits, you’d have to program them one by one through a set of operations in order to place them in the correct quantum state to represent the molecular system. These operations take some time, that would be quite a long operation over hundreds of thousands of qbits, possibly it could span several days. The amount of time is not the problem itself: solving such a system in just a few days would be great! However, over time qbits lose their state and the system becomes incoherent. You expect it to be in a certain state due to the operations you performed to program it, but it no longer is in such a state.
As long as I understood, it is plausibly physically impossible to maintain coherence over such a large amount of qbits.
Could they devise an algorithm which requires less qbits? Sure, I mean even this algorithm does not exist; it’s just the most viable idea I’ve seen. However as of now no such algorithms exist. And I do not understand why: you do not need a computer to design the algorithms.
Still haven’t heard of a single valid application of quantum computing which is not breaking encryption.
Optimization algorithms, sure. Just make sure your problem is an appropriate graph. Does optimizing railway timetables make building a quantum computer for that viable?
Computational chemistry and protein folding. That’s actually great! However nobody working on such problems has ever been able to explain what is the theory which would allow such calculations. Most of them just say stuff like atoms have quantum properties and thus using quantum computers you can calculate those properties. Even disregarding the theory availability, when I ask of then they’d be able to work on systems comprised of tens of thousands of atoms all of them start panicking as apparently it is probably physically impossible to build a computer that retains coherence at the number of obits necessary to encode such a system.
I mean, this would all be nice; but do we even know what the purpose of such machines could be?
But then they upload them to Anna’s archive, right?
This could actually be a great initiative if they made them public or at least gave the scans to some Library.
Spain does grow some.
But… Alpha fold is AI.
Just prepare the sauce before you cook the pasta, that way you’re sure.
It’s better to cook the pasta together with the sauce for a minute or two.
Just add an appropriate amount of water to you pot.
Place a wooden spoon over the top of the pot, the foam will not boil over.
Use plenty water. If they stick together with the advised amount, use more water. Doing that won’t change the taste.
Regarding the boiling of water, it is not required. I believe pasta needs about 80°C to cook. If you have enough water and cover the pot with a lid you can turn off the fire and it will cook.
You have at most 15 seconds to thoroughly mix your pasta with the sauce.
Nobody in their right mind would ever let pasta sit without sauce.
Once I had to watch while some people strained the pasta, let it there and then started chatting about something else. They were wondering about why I was going crazy and then they complained the pasta stuck together…
Please, don’t let your pasta sit unattended. Also, Barilla is not a particularly good brand of pasta.
Here’s your smiley face, happy? Now fuck off.
I use fedora with wayland and use teams at work. The non official desktop program is completely unusable.
What I end up doing when I have a call is open it both in Firefox and chrome and check which one works first. I’ll open it on my phone as well in case neither works. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not.
I found that audio does not work if you connect headphones after the browser was started.
In general my solution is to push to use jitsi anytime I can.
Great, you found the correct way to compile software: disregard documentation and install libraries until the compiler stops complaining
Most devices I connect to my computer use USB A.
Without USB A I would not have mouse, keyboard, USB key, external SSD.
Most of the people developing AI are Linux users.