codesushi42

I have never read this book. Ironically, I have read and enjoyed many books from PragProg. But this one always struck me as a "fufu" book, written around giving advice that one can independently reason and acquire during one's career.

Am I wrong? Is this book worth reading if you already have many years of experience under your belt?

Both methods requires 𝒪(log2(𝑁)) qubits in total, where N is the number to be factored. The novelty of our demonstration of quantum annealing for prime factorization is based on the reduction in quantum resources required to execute factoring and the experimental verification of the algorithmic accuracy using currently available hardware. As a proof-of-concept, we have demonstrated these methods by factoring integers using the D-Wave 2000Q quantum annealing hardware, but these methods may be used on any other quantum annealing system with a similar number of qubits, qubit degree of connectivity, and hardware parameter precision. Assuming that quantum annealing hardware systems will continue to grow both in the number of qubits and bits of precision capabilities, our methods offer a promising path toward factor much larger numbers in the future.

And there is this too: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11433-018-9307-...

Are you just going to sit there and lob lame insults or do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

Intelligent life that is too far away to ever encounter us.

I was referring to the quantum annealing example, because no 97 qubit quantum computer exists yet.

Besides, the empirical data shows otherwise. It takes 12 qubits to factor 15. We're up to 53 now.

With quantum annealing, a 20 bit number has been factored with 97 qubits. Not on a real quantum computer yet, of course.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.

And you failed to consider quantum annealing as an alternative to Shor.

But non CS folk never did understand, in my > 10 year experience.

Of course there will always be exceptions. John Carmack is one of the greatest programmers of all time, and he never went to college. To be fair, he did excel a lot further under the mentorship of Michael Abrash, who was a researcher in 3d graphics.

But for your average Joe schmoe, this is likely not to be the case.

Would I not hire someone on the basis of no CS degree? No.

Would I be more skeptical? Absolutely.

Would I consider them for a senior advisor role? Probably not.

Unless it's from another technical field (math, physics). Even then, I don't know, it depends on the role. I've seen a lot of shit code from people who were mathematically brilliant.

I have worked at both startups and FAANGs.

There are developers with CS degrees who are clearly worse than those without. But I could always tell who did not have a CS degree, based on poor understanding of things like running time analysis, good systems design, more complex algorithms etc.

The best developers always had at least a CS undergrad. Though there are clearly diminishing returns with going above that, unless you are a researcher.

Still, the goal of this site is commendable. There are tons of folks who don't have degrees because they could not afford it.

Well, Joel obviously wasn't taught statistics then, because you need calculus to learn it properly.

And trig is such a fundamental math needed for linear algebra and vector calculus that it shouldn't be dropped either.

"The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in an accusation."

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...

It can mean that.

sentence immediately after that makes it clear that he didn't mean it as such.

No, it is debatable. The following sentence does not clearly state they were unwilling.

Another Stallman gem:

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

Stallman wrote that “the most plausible scenario” for Giuffre’s accusations was that she was, in actuality, “entirely willing.”

How is that a rational, defensible statement in any terms?

"Attention" is all you need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F620ommtjqk&list=PLGvfHSgImk...

I don't think it touches upon ML, but it is relevant for understanding the difference between GPUs and CPUs. You can go through the intro to backprop lectures on deeplearning.ai for ML.

You're right if by "more expressive" you meant "not really safe at all". By using the types of hacks you proposed, you end up losing type information and safety guarantees. So why bother using Typescript in the first place then? Your example is the perfect argument against Typescript.

If you were referring to generic types, then there's no good reason to do that in the first place. Use a base type. Polymorphism 101. Anything else would be duck typing, and not safe.

There's no middle ground with type safety: it is either safe or not. And if there's a chance it's not, then you've lost and all of your efforts are pointless without resorting to manual checks.

And if you were somehow referring to C++ like templating (unlikely), then Typescript doesn't support that anyway.

Usually that happens using generic types. They are almost completely worthless in Typescript, and have no analog whatsoever in JS. So you are mucking around just to please the transpiler but adding a type unsafe hack anyway in place of a generic argument.

Typescript should have just stuck with providing checks on type declarations. That's it. Stop adding features from Java/C# when they make no sense in JS.

I would pick another language in a heartbeat, given a choice.

The future does not look so good for us.

Of course they would.

Yeah, because neither of those teams had any idea what they were doing, obviously. Even with C++ 11 at their disposal. But somehow, interestingly enough, you do.

Neither uses RAII, so they pay a 20-30% runtime penalty

Who knows where you pulled that number from.

I guess then, according to you at least, there are no performance penalties to be paid for any C++ language features. Please, continue to impart your knowledge and unreferenced benchmark tests on us all.

But I will say this: stop blaming women for your shortcomings.