q_eng_anon

https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/distroless

This is the container community’s response to this ambiguity I think.

most cornell thing I've ever seen

if you're a comp-sci guy and just interested in understanding what it's all about Aaronson will be your favorite author:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/barbados-2016.pdf

thank you - you are my favorite kind of person!

(use https though)

waitttt so you're shorting companies based purely on 'diversity'? and you claim it's worked..?

its compartmentalized - even within the q team

although qiskit is open source so literally anyone can look at the GitHub and get a pretty good idea of what's going on

Apple, Spotify, etc. (or a third-party) need to agree on a standard format for a users music library so that we can switch between UIs more easily - separate the UI from the actual music provider, allow more niche UIs

Obviously nobody will do this because their whole game is locking people in - but nothing is stopping Apple/Spotify from exposing a dev interface to Apple Music's UI components that would allow essentially the same thing but only with Apple Music as backend provider

take more adderal - you can't

this is nice - good luck to you and yours - definitely going to give it a listen

quick somebody do the combinatorics on this

anybody else annoyed by the excel graph?

Is she getting 'interference' and 'de-coherence' mixed up..?

ooookay a more recent demonstration: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03719.pdf

you said the number 15 was never factored on a quantum computer - this is false.

You can run as many gates as you want - go ahead and run 4608 gates in qiskit right now - the measurements will be random but you can do it.

IDK where you got that equation for the number of gates but it's probably for the general case - doesn't take into account the fact that different gate sets can be used to reduce the total.

Also confused on the error correction part - the whole point of error correction is to make the coherence time independent of the number of 'gates' in your circuit - so yeah with error correction you get more gates but you also get an effectively infinite coherence time...

'non-programmable'... um what?

lmao they did this 2 decades ago: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0112176.pdf

Error detection vs. error correction are very different things. It's true that many physical qubits (and a proper error correction scheme) are required to implement a single logical qubit. But once a valid design for a single logical qubit (device, error correction, etc.) is realized, the limits of scaling the entire system change completely (infinite t1 of each qubit means you don't NECESSARILY have to have all of your qubits on the same device...)

thought you were going to tie it back into transistors for a second there... difference amplifiers are, after all, one of the simplest circuits out there. Not so sure about similarity amplifiers

mind bottling stuff here man thanks

Also, say I implement the visitor pattern in some language on a classical machine - aren't there branch instructions being used under the covers anyway?

(the code will probably be more optimized / easier to optimize for the compiler but you get my point)

thanks for tying it back into quantum - also for the clarification that the way you write them doesn't matter - whether that be in terms of if/else, switch statements or actual CPU-level branch instructions.

this is interesting - thanks for your response.

I'm having a hard time understanding the program you supplied though, the subsequent description did not really help (probs more my fault than your own). I certainly understand the visitor pattern (and have had a sneaky suspicion it is important) but the lambda calculus, not so much.

What type of syntax is the program you supplied in - is it more of a pseudocode or an actual formal language?

thanks for the search keywords - definitely helped - if you have a favorite textbook/arxiv reference/author on this stuff, those would be greatly appreciated as well.