An international group of researchers, working on complex computer models for predicting the behavior of electrons, has discovered that those very computational models might not be as accurate as they should be. In fact, as the computers used to model atoms get smarter, they might actually be getting worse at their jobs.
Let’s take a step back. Devices we use in our everyday lives are getting smarter with every passing day — just ask Alexa or Siri. These are just two systems built on complex algorithms that analyze vast amounts of data in the blink of an eye in order to answer your questions or start up that Holiday Pop playlist on Spotify. These are relatively simple tasks, but requesting that a computer system perform them autonomously requires immense computational power.
The kind of algorithms necessary to perform those simple tasks are very complicated, as they need to analyze natural language and compare that input to an immense array of data in order to figure out what you’re asking for. However, these smart, “artificial intelligence” algorithms pale in comparison to the algorithms researchers use to model the fundamental workings of an atom or molecule.
Researchers use algorithms to determine the behavior of electrons in various complex materials, and even today predicting the behavior of electrons is only possible for very simple atoms. These algorithms were built to estimate the energy and electron density of particular atoms, using a mathematical theory which scales from single atoms to complex materials. According to Ars Technica, a team of Russian-U.S. researchers set about putting those models to the test.
When the researchers started comparing various algorithms used to model the density and energy of atoms, they discovered that the systems were getting better and better at estimating the energy of a particular atom, but as they progressed, they became worse at estimating the electron density of that same atom.
According to Ars Technica’s science editor, this is a function of the algorithms’ ability to model electrons based on empirical evidence — plugging in real-world values instead of estimated values seems to have a negative effect on the accuracy of these computer models.
The solution? Well, that depends on your area of research. If you need accurate electron density you might want to use an algorithm based on functions with “little or no empiricism” but if you need accurate energy calculations, you’d be better off using a “highly empirical” algorithm.
It’s a fascinating discovery and an important reminder that our most complex and powerful computer systems still have trouble modeling the most fundamental structures of the universe.
The absolutely absurd idea of putting a touchscreen display on a mouse isn't exactly new. Turtle Beach already did it with its Command Series MC7, which features a 2.25-inch control screen. But apparently, even that wasn't ridiculous enough for Arctic Fox Technologies. Its new Super Mouse looks like someone took the chunky old Atari ST mouse, slapped a touchscreen and scroll wheel on it, and called it an upgrade.
The result is a rather unusual-looking mouse that is now on Kickstarter, starting at $199. And as ridiculous as it looks, some of its features are genuinely intriguing.
Apple is less than a day away from launching its highly anticipated OLED MacBook Pro with a touch-sensitive screen. But it appears that the upgrade is going to cost a pretty penny. According to a report by Bloomberg, Apple is reportedly eyeing a starting price of $2,899 for the 14-inch MacBook Pro, while the 16-inch version could start at $3,399 in the US.
"At $2,899, the 14-inch model would mark the highest starting price for a new MacBook Pro model, surpassing the $2,799 Apple charged for a 17-inch version introduced in 2006," says the report. The report claims that Apple is targeting a minimum price hike of $400 for its upcoming redesigned 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models.
I've spent a good amount of time digging into the spec sheet of the new M6 MacBook Pro (14-inch), and for all intents and purposes, this is a classic Apple "chip and connectivity" refresh. It's not a full redesign. The chassis, Liquid Retina XDR panel, speakers, ports, and battery, all of them carry over unchanged.
However, the M6 brings more cores, stronger on-device AI, higher memory bandwidth on the larger configs, and modern wireless. Here’s the practical rundown of what actually improved, and whether those gains are worth your money.