The development ideology of Fexbits implies the creation of its own unified ecosystem based on quantum technologies and distribution of platform resources between users. The main mission of Fexbits is to provide users with effective ways to earn rewards and bonuses based on the use of quantum computing and provide access to the platforms of strategic partners.
Our partners hold patents in the field of quantum computing, which are used by Fexbits in the cryptocurrency market. More than 20 offices have been opened by partners of the Fexbits platform in different countries of the world: United States, Mexico, Thailand, Cambodia, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Great Britain, etc.
We offer various ways to obtain profits, Fexbits has a highly qualified staff that protects the assets of our members and offers them real, lasting, stable and above all safe benefits. Our priority is each of our members so our website has an incredible automated system that makes withdrawals efficiently and safely
At Fexbits we always think of our members to offer them different ways to obtain benefits that is why we have implemented a 6-level referral system with an excellent profit percentage..Read more details here:
Marking the passage of time in a world of ticking clocks and swinging pendulums is a simple case of counting the seconds between ‘then’ and ‘now’. Down at the quantum scale of buzzing electrons, however, ‘then’ can’t always be anticipated. Worse still, ‘now’ often blurs into a haze of uncertainty. A stopwatch simply isn’t going to cut it for some scenarios.
A potential solution could be found in the very shape of the quantum fog itself, according to researchers from Uppsala University in Sweden. Their experiments on the wave-like nature of something called a Rydberg state have revealed a novel way to measure time that doesn’t require a precise starting point.
Rydberg atoms are the over-inflated balloons of the particle kingdom. Puffed-up with lasers instead of air, these atoms contain electrons in extremely high energy states, orbiting far from the nucleus. Of course, not every pump of a laser needs to puff an atom up to cartoonish proportions. In fact, lasers are routinely used to tickle electrons into higher energy states for a variety of uses.
In some applications, a second laser can be used to monitor the changes in the electron’s position, including the passing of time. These ‘pump-probe‘ techniques can be used to measure the speed of certain ultrafast electronics, for instance. Inducing atoms into Rydberg states is a handy trick for engineers, not least when it comes to designing novel components for quantum computers.
Needless to say, physicists have amassed a significant amount of information about the way electrons move about when nudged into a Rydberg state. Being quantum animals, though, their movements are less like beads sliding about on a tiny abacus, and more like an evening at the roulette table, where every roll and jump of the ball is squeezed into a single game of chance.
The mathematical rule book behind this wild game of Rydberg electron roulette is referred to as a Rydberg wave packet. Just like actual waves in a pond, having more than one Rydberg wave packet rippling about in a space creates interference, resulting in unique patterns of ripples. Throw enough Rydberg wave packets into the same atomic pond, and those unique patterns will each represent the distinct time it takes for the wave packets to evolve in accordance with one another.
It was these very ‘fingerprints’ of time that the physicists behind this latest set of experiments set out to test, showing they were consistent and reliable enough to serve as a form of quantum timestamping. Their research involved measuring the results of laser-excited helium atoms and matching their findings with theoretical predictions to show how their signature results could stand in for a duration of time.
“If you’re using a counter, you have to define zero. You start counting at some point,” physicist Marta Berholts from the University of Uppsala in Sweden, who led the team, explained to New Scientist. “The benefit of this is that you don’t have to start the clock – you just look at the interference structure and say ‘okay, it’s been 4 nanoseconds.’
A guide book of evolving Rydberg wave packets could be used in combination with other forms of pump-probe spectroscopy that measure events on a tiny scale, when now and then are less clear, or simply too inconvenient to measure. Importantly, none of the fingerprints require a then and now to serve as a starting and stopping point for time.
It’d be like measuring an unknown sprinter’s race against a number of competitors running at set speeds. By looking for the signature of interfering Rydberg states amid a sample of pump-probe atoms, technicians could observe a timestamp for events as fleeting as just 1.7 trillionths of a second.
Future quantum watch experiments could replace the helium with other atoms, or even use laser pulse of different energies, to broaden the guide book of timestamps to suit a broader range of conditions.
“Physics by Aristotle”. MIT. Archived from the original on 26 June 2014. Retrieved 4 May 2014.“Time then is a kind of number. (Number, we must note, is used in two senses – both of what is counted or the countable and also of that with which we count. Time obviously is what is counted, not that with which we count
The Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd edition. Archived from the original on 13 April 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2011. translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn, eBooks@Adelaide, 2004Bergson, Henri (1907) Creative Evolution. trans. by Arthur Mitchell. Mineola: Dover, 1998.Balslev, Anindita N.; Jitendranath Mohanty (November 1992).
Religion and Time. Studies in the History of Religions, 54. The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 53–59. ISBN978-90-04-09583-0. Archived from the original on 20 August 2020. Retrieved 30 July 2019.Martin Heidegger (1962). “V”. Being and Time. p. 425. ISBN978-0-631-19770-6. Archived from the original on 19 August 2020. Retrieved 30 July 2019.
Time is an illusion?”. 24 March 2007. Archived from the original on 8 July 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2011.Herman M. Schwartz, Introduction to Special Relativity, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, hardcover 442 pages, see ISBN0-88275-478-5 (1977 edition), pp. 10–13A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, H. Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity,
“Time Management for Kids”. Psychology Today. Archived from the original on 30 July 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2014.Wada Y, Masuda T, Noguchi K, 2005, “Temporal illusion called ‘kappa effect’ in event perception” Perception 34 ECVP Abstract SupplementAdler, Robert. “Look how time flies”. Archived from the original on 14 June 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2011.Gruber, Ronald P.; Wagner, Lawrence F.; Block, Richard A. (2000). “
We asked a theoretical physicist, an experimental physicist, and a professor of philosophy to weigh in. During the 20th century, researchers pushed the frontiers of science further than ever before with great strides made in two very distinct fields. While physicists discovered the strange counter-intuitive rules that govern the subatomic world, our understanding of how the mind works burgeoned.
Yet, in the newly-created fields of quantum physics and cognitive science, difficult and troubling mysteries still linger, and occasionally entwine. Why do quantum states suddenly resolve when they’re measured, making it at least superficially appear that observation by a conscious mind has the capacity to change the physical world? What does that tell us about consciousness?
Popular Mechanics spoke to three researchers from different fields for their views on a potential quantum consciousness connection. Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: a theoretical physicist, an experimental physicist, and a professor of philosophy walk into a bar …
Quantum Physics and Consciousness Are Weird
Early quantum physicists noticed through the double-slit experiment that the act of attempting to measure photons as they pass through wavelength-sized slits to a detection screen on the other side changed their behavior.
This measurement attempt caused wave-like behavior to be destroyed, forcing light to behave more like a particle. While this experiment answered the question “is light a wave or a particle?” — it’s neither, with properties of both, depending on the circumstance — it left behind a more troubling question in its wake. What if the act of observation with the human mind is actually causing the world to manifest changes , albeit on an incomprehensibly small scale?
Renowned and reputable scientists such as Eugene Wigner, John Bell, and later Roger Penrose, began to consider the idea that consciousness could be a quantum phenomenon. Eventually, so did researchers in cognitive science (the scientific study of the mind and its processes), but for different reasons.
Ulf Danielsson, an author and a professor of theoretical physics at Uppsala University in Sweden, believes one of the reasons for the association between quantum physics and consciousness—at least from the perspective of cognitive science—is the fact that processes on a quantum level are completely random. This is different from the deterministic way in which classical physics proceeds, and means even the best calculations that physicists can come up with in regard to quantum experiments are mere probabilities.
“Consciousness is a phenomenon associated with free will and free will makes use of the freedom that quantum mechanics supposedly provides.”
The existence of free will as an element of consciousness also seems to be a deeply non-deterministic concept. Recall that in mathematics, computer science, and physics, deterministic functions or systems involve no randomness in the future state of the system; in other words, a deterministic function will always yield the same results if you give it the same inputs. Meanwhile, a nondeterministic function or system will give you different results every time, even if you provide the same input values.
“I think that’s why cognitive sciences are looking toward quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, there is room for chance,” Danielsson tells Popular Mechanics. “Consciousness is a phenomenon associated with free will and free will makes use of the freedom that quantum mechanics supposedly provides.”
However, Jeffrey Barrett, chancellor’s professor of logic and philosophy of science at the University of California, Irvine, thinks the connection is somewhat arbitrary from the cognitive science side.
“It’s really hard to explain consciousness, it is a deep and abiding philosophical problem. So quantum physicists are desperate and those guys [cognitive scientists] are desperate over there too,” Barrett tells Popular Mechanics. “And they think that quantum mechanics is weird. Consciousness is weird. There might be some relationship between the two.”
This rationalization isn’t convincing to him, however. “I don’t think that there’s any reason to suppose from the cognitive science direction that quantum mechanics has anything to do with explaining consciousness,” Barrett continues. From the quantum perspective, however, Barrett sees a clear reason why physicists first proposed the connection to consciousness.
“If it wasn’t for the quantum measurement problem, nobody, including the physicists involved in this early discussion, would be thinking that consciousness and quantum mechanics had anything to do with each other,” he says. At the heart of quantum “weirdness” and the measurement problem, there is a concept called “superposition.”
Because the possible states of a quantum system are described using wave mathematics — or more precisely, wave functions — a quantum system can exist in many overlapping states, or a superposition. The weird thing is, these states can be contradictory. To see how counter-intuitive this can be, we can refer to one of history’s most famous thought experiments, the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox.
Devised by Erwin Schrödinger, the experiment sees an unfortunate cat placed in a box with what the physicist described as a “diabolical device” for an hour. The device releases a deadly poison if an atom in the box decays during that period. Because the decay of atoms is completely random, there is no way for the experimenter to predict if the cat is dead or alive until the hour is up and the box is opened.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Treating the cat, box, and device as a quantum system with two possible states—“dead” or “alive”—before the box is opened, means it is in a superposition of those states . The cat is both dead and alive before you open the container.
The problem of measurement asks what is it about “opening the box” — analogous to making a measurement — that causes the wave function to collapse, and this superposition to be destroyed, resolving one state? Is it due to the introduction of the conscious mind of the experimenter? Early quantum physicist Eugene Wigner thought so until shortly before his death in 1995.
Physical Body and Quantum Mind?
In 1961, Wigner put forward a theory in which a mind was crucial to the collapse of a wave function and the destruction of superposition which persists in one form or another to this day.
Wigner and other physicists who adhered to the theory of conscious collapses—such as John von Neumann, John Wheeler, and John Bell—believed that an inanimate consciousness-less object would not collapse the wave function of a quantum system and would thus leave it in a superposition of states.
That means placing a Geiger counter in the box with Schrödinger’s cat isn’t enough to collapse the system to a “dead” or “alive” state even though it is capable of telling if the poison-release atom had decayed.
The superposition remains, Winger said, until a conscious observer opens the box or maybe hears the tick of the Geiger counter.
This leads to the conclusion that there are two distinct types of “substances” in the universe: the physical, and the non-physical , with the human mind fitting in the latter category. This suggests, though, that the brain is a physical and biological object, while the mind is something else, resulting in so-called “mind-body dualism.”
For materialists like himself, Danielsson says the collapse of a wave function in quantum mechanics is a result of an interaction with another physical system. This means it’s quite possible for an “observer” to be a completely unconscious object. To them, the Geiger counter in the box with Schrödinger’s cat is capable of collapsing the superposition of states.
This fits in with the fact that quantum systems are incredibly finely balanced systems easily collapsed by a stray electromagnetic field or even a change in temperature. If you want to know why we don’t have reliable quantum computers, that’s a part of the reason—the quantum states they depend on are too easily disturbed.
Additionally, as Barrett points out, there are a number of ways of thinking about quantum mechanics that don’t involve the collapse of quantum superposition.
The most famous, Hugh Everett III’s many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, suggests that when the experimenter makes a measurement, the wave function doesn’t collapse at all. Instead, it grows to include the experimenter and the entire universe, with one “world” for each possible state. Thus, the experimenter opens the box not to discover if the cat is dead or alive, but rather, if they are in a world in which the cat survived or did not.
If there is no collapse of superpositions, there is no measurement problem.
Clearly, with Noble Prize winners like Wigner and Roger Penrose persuaded that there may be something in a possible quantum-consciousness connection, however, the idea can’t be entirely dismissed.
Kristian Piscicchia, a researcher at the Enrico Fermi Center for Study and Research in Rome, Italy, certainly agrees. He is part of a team searching for a more profound understanding of the mind and the relationship between consciousness and the laws of nature.
This team recently set about testing one particular theory that connects consciousness to the collapse of quantum superposition — the Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory (Orch OR theory) — put forward by Nobel Laureate and Oxford mathematician Penrose and Arizona State University anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff in the 1990s.
Testing Quantum Consciousness Theories
Orch OR theory considers quantum collapse to be related to gravity and argues this collapse actually gives rise to consciousness. According to some approaches to Orch OR theory, the superposition collapse mechanism underlying it should cause the spontaneous emission of a tiny amount of radiation. This distinguishes it from other quantum consciousness theories as it makes it experimentally testable.
“When a system is in a quantum superposition, an unstable superposition of two space-time geometries is generated which determines the wave function collapse in a characteristic time,” Piscicchia tells Popular Mechanics. “The mechanism takes place at the level of microtubules in the brain.”
Microtubules are a key element of eukaryotic cells that are critical for mitosis, cell motility, transport within cells, and maintaining cell shape. Hameroff’s theory sees microtubules in brain neurons as the seat of quantum consciousness, maintaining quantum effects just long enough to conduct computations giving rise to consciousness before collapsing.
“A sufficient amount of microtubule material would be in a coherent quantum superposition for a timescale of between half a second and ten milliseconds until a collapse event results in the emergence of a conscious experience,” Piscicchia says. “We designed an experiment being sensitive enough to unveil eventual signals of gravity-related spontaneous radiation, at the collapse time-scales needed for the Orch OR mechanism to be effective.”
He adds that the results the team obtained place a constraint on the minimum amount of microtubulins needed for this form of Orch OR theory. This limit was found to be prohibitively large, meaning the results indicate that many of the scenarios set out by Hameroff and Penrose’s quantum consciousness theory are implausible.
Piscicchia points out that the team’s work can’t rule out all possibilities, however, and further testing is needed.
Yet, the existence of the quantum consciousness concept itself—and the way it is represented in popular culture—could present a threat to further scientific investigation.
The mind-body dualism suggested by quantum consciousness can be a potentially slippery slope that has led some proponents away from science and into the supernatural.
The concept has also been seized upon to explain the existence of the soul, life after death, and even the existence of ghosts, giving rise to a cottage industry of “quantum mysticism.”
“There’s lots of literature that uses the authority of physics and in particular quantum physics in order to make all sorts of claims,” Danielsson explains. “You can earn a lot of money by fooling people in various ways to buy not only books but also various products. It gives the wrong view of what science is.”
“Quantum mysticism makes it very difficult for serious scientists to think about problems like quantum mechanics and consciousness.”
The physicist also believes that it is definitely the case that the rise of quantum mysticism is hurting legitimate research. “Quantum mysticism makes it very difficult for serious scientists to think about problems like quantum mechanics and consciousness,” he adds. “This is because there is a risk that you might get associated with things which are not so serious.”
Danielsson doesn’t rule out that even if the mind is a purely emergent property of the brain, and thus completely physical in nature, the phenomenon of consciousness may require new physics to explain it. He doesn’t necessarily think that this needs to be quantum mechanics, however.
“That doesn’t mean that there might be many interesting phenomena new to quantum mechanics that might appear in the living world, including in our brains,” he concludes. “One shouldn’t say that quantum mechanics is trivial and that there is no mystery to it.
“It’s just another fantastic property of the world that we are living in. It’s not mystical in a supernatural way.”
Elon Musk thinks you don’t exist. But it’s nothing personal: he thinks he doesn’t exist either. At least, not in the normal sense of existing. Instead we are just immaterial software constructs running on a gigantic alien computer simulation. Musk has stated that the odds are billions to one that we are actually living in “base reality”, ie the physical universe.
At the end of last year, he responded to a tweet about the anniversary of the crude tennis video game Pong (1972) by writing: “49 years later, games are photo-realistic 3D worlds. What does that trend continuing imply about our reality?”
This idea is surprisingly popular among philosophers and even some scientists. Its modern version is based on a seminal 2003 paper, Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? by the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom. Assume, he says, that in the far future, civilisations hugely more technically advanced than ours will be interested in running “ancestor simulations” of the sentient beings in their distant galactic past.
If so, there will one day be many more simulated minds than real minds. Therefore you should be very surprised if you are actually one of the few real minds in existence rather than one of the trillions of simulated minds.
This idea has a long history in philosophical scepticism (the idea that we can’t know anything for sure about the external world) and other traditions. The Chinese Taoist sage Zhuangzi wrote a celebrated fable about a man who couldn’t be sure whether he was a man dreaming of being a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming of being a man.
René Descartes imagined that he might be being manipulated by an “evil demon” (or “evil genius”) that controlled all the sensations he experienced, while the 20th-century American philosopher Hilary Putnam coined the term “brain in a vat” to describe a similar idea. But while Neo in the Wachowskis’ 1999 film The Matrix really is a brain (or rather a whole depilated body) in a vat, the simulation hypothesis says that you do not have a physical body anywhere. “You” are merely the result of mathematical calculations in some vast computer.
There are many possible objections to this idea even getting off the ground, as Bostrom notes. Perhaps it is simply not possible for computer-simulated beings to become conscious in the way we are. (This would defeat the “assumption of substrate independence”, according to which minds are not dependent on biological matter.) Or perhaps all civilisations destroy themselves before getting to the simulation stage. (Plausible if not necessarily comforting.)
Or perhaps advanced civilisations are simply not interested in running such simulations, which would be surprising given the kinds of things humans do – such as developing video deep-fake technology or researching how to make viruses more virulent – even though they seem to be very bad ideas.
The simulation hypothesis is perhaps attractive to a wider culture because of its nature as a cosmic-scale conspiracy theory as well as an apparently scientific version of Creationism. The inconceivably advanced alien running its simulation of our universe is indistinguishable from traditional terrestrial ideas of God: an all-powerful being who designed everything we see.
But is this god the god of deism (who sets up the laws of nature but then absents himself while creation runs its course), or a more interventionist figure? If the latter, it might make sense to court their favour.
How, though, should we please such a god? Not necessarily by being virtuous, but by being – assuming the simulator is watching us for its own pleasure – at least entertaining. This line of reasoning might imply, for example, that it is one’s duty to become a florid serial killer, or a guy who tries to colonise Mars and buy Twitter.
“Be funny, outrageous, violent, sexy, strange, pathetic, heroic … in a word ‘dramatic’,” counsels the economist Robin Hanson, considering that assumption in his 2001 paper How to Live in a Simulation . “If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal it seems that you should care less about others,” he concludes, and “live more for today”.
One commonly despairing reaction to the idea that we might all be simulated is that this renders our lives meaningless, and that nothing we see or experience is “real”. The Australian philosopher David Chalmers, in his recent book Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, argues otherwise. For him, a digital table in VR is a real table.
It is no more disqualified from being “real” by the fact that it is, at bottom, made up of digital ones and zeros than a physical table is disqualified from being real by the fact that it is, at bottom, made up of quantum wave-packets. Indeed, some esoteric theories of physics consider “reality” itself to be at base quantum-computational or mathematical in nature anyway.
Is there any good reason to actually believe the simulation argument, though? Or is it just aesthetically piquant techno-religion? Chalmers observes that it is at least more plausible than earlier iterations of scepticism such as Descartes’s evil demon, simply because we now have functioning prototypes (video games, VR) of how such a simulation might work.
Others have speculated that there may be clues to the fact that our universe is a simulation hidden in the very fabric of the “reality” that we can investigate: perhaps the simulation cuts corners at very small scales or very high energies. Indeed, experiments (for instance in Campbell et al., “On Testing the Simulation Theory”, 2017) have been seriously proposed that might reveal the answer.
But not so fast. Remember that we can’t know what the goal of the simulators is. Perhaps, for them, the game is not merely to observe us as an indefinite planet‑sized soap opera, but simply to see how long the sim-people take to prove that they’re in a simulation. At which point, the game ends and the simulation is turned off. Perhaps we’re better off not finding out.
Steven Poole is the author of Rethink: The Surprising History of New Ideas, published by Random House. To support the Guardian and the Observer order a copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
The Simulation Hypothesis: An MIT Computer Scientist Shows Why AI, Quantum Physics and Eastern Mystics All Agree We Are in a Video Game by Rizwan Virk (Bayview)
Simulation article in Encyclopedia of Computer Science, “designing a model of a real or imagined system and conducting experiments with that model”Sokolowski, J.A.; Banks, C.M. (2009).
Thales defines synthetic environment as “the counterpart to simulated models of sensors, platforms and other active objects” for “the simulation of the external factors that affect them
The age of social media has disrupted conventional ways of advertising and transformed the way that businesses reach consumers. In recent years, social media itself has undergone radical changes. Mike Mandell is a leading lawyer on social media thanks to the popularity of his legal tips and entertaining posts. Here he shares his advice for startups and their founders.
Alison Coleman: Why is it so important for startups to develop a great social media strategy for their business?
Mike Mandell: In the past, companies had to spend years amassing a large following to have any hope of a substantial number of views. Today, short-form video content, 15 to 30 seconds in length, is the cutting edge. Quickly produced videos can launch a business into the spotlight overnight, or even faster.
By studying what captured the public’s attention, companies can follow up with more viral content on a consistent basis, keeping their brand relevant and vital. Social media represents a quantum leap in identifying niche markets. Algorithms know things about users that they might not know themselves. As the software learns more about individuals, its ability to influence them only grows.
Coleman: Many startup founders lack the time, resources, and budgets to create valuable viral content; how can they compete?
Mandell: First, let’s talk about budgets. With the dominance of short-form content, it’s not necessary to have one. Posting consistent, quality content alone can create a huge audience for your work. That said, even a shoestring budget can go far on social media. Allocating a few hundred bucks to boosting your posts would allow you to experiment until you see enough leads to justify the time and effort.
The beauty of this system is that cost scales with your success. If you’re making money, you’ll eventually want to hire staff to handle your social media. Businesses can do this more cheaply than they might expect. A million young people ache for these jobs, and they don’t expect a fortune in salary. They want in the game. That’s it. Keep in mind that these skills are learnable, as well. Consider offering paid internships.
Coleman: What tips do you have for startups for building a winning social media presence that pays dividends?
Mandell: Build an inventory before you launch. Have 10 to 20 videos on hand as a cushion. Avoid making your topics too time-sensitive, if you require your ‘rainy day’ fund for later, rather than sooner. Keep a list of your thoughts. You’d be surprised how often you can forget a brilliant idea if you don’t record it. Listen to followers and consumers; they’ll tell you what they want. On social media they leave comments. Read these and let the feedback, both positive and negative, guide your future content.
The algorithms favor consistency, and part of maintaining your audience is ensuring followers know when to expect something new. If you release new content on Monday and Friday, then do that consistently. Even consider letting subscribers know you’ll be going away on vacation for a week. If your content isn’t seeing sufficient returns, consider taking a hard look at its appeal from an audience-centered perspective.
Coleman: What’s the key to going viral?
Mandell: Firstly, you don’t need to go viral to have a successful social media presence. The key is engagement, not the number of views or your follower count. The more people engage with your content, the farther along you are in creating a community of supporters who love your brand.
Focus on that. I’d rather have 1,000 followers who engage with me all the time than 500,000 who never comment. People want to do business with someone they feel connected to, and social media provides you with that opportunity. A tight-knit audience that has ‘buy-in’ will do more for you than a huge passive following.
When it comes to creating viral content, the keys are to innovate, engage with followers, produce solid material, and release it on a consistent schedule. Most importantly, persist. One of the quickest ways to fail involves assuming you’ll strike gold, failing to do so, and quitting. Building a following on social media can be a grind. Luck does indeed play a role. But the longer you push, the luckier you are bound to get.Coleman: What are the common social media mistakes made by startups and small businesses, and how can they be corrected?
Mandell: Don’t develop a persona and try to perform. Be genuine. People respond to authenticity. And don’t bandwagon. If you just echo what everyone else is already saying, then you’ll get lost in the shuffle. Most people can tell you are just fishing for likes or followers. Instead, create a purposeful brand and stick to it, even when others shift in another direction. People can change their minds overnight, and they might switch back before you know it. Your consistency will beget their trust.
Be careful what you say. What you put online stays there. This goes for private messages, which someone could screenshot and share on multiple platforms. Finally, long-form content is popular – but only if you have a base audience that wants it. If not, short means short. If it’s not essential to post, remove it.
The development ideology of Fexbits implies the creation of its own unified ecosystem based on quantum technologies and distribution of platform resources between users. The main mission of Fexbits is to provide users with effective ways to earn rewards and bonuses based on the use of quantum computing and provide access to the platforms of strategic partners.
