I was driving and, yes I sometimes swear when driving, just so happened I had Siri listen in.
I think her response was perfect. "I usually don't".
No idea how Elon Musk feels about it, but I think it's not quite appropriate.
The fictional Tony Stark made his money with dubious weapons business.
Frankly Elon Musk is the better man.
Yes, your comment is pretty sad, thinking that the spelling is the issue here.
What's even sadder is that I knew some dumbass AC is going to make that comment.
One thing should be not in doubt so:
Sighs aren't even Muslim.
Towel on the head does not make a terrorist.
You are probably right
This is much more important than Daesh/ISIS. If you think the US is threatened by these barbarians then they already achieved half their objective, getting into your head and under your skin. The other half of their objective is to get US troops involved into another mid-East quagmire.
When I lived in the Research Triangle I had these young dudes come by the house, with hardly any teeth left, offering me to clean the gutters or sell me fresh meat. The Research Triangle is nice, but as soon as your drive out of that oasis of wealth, you notice it is the aberration and not the other way around. I decided I rather raise my kids in Canada.
I think you exactly identified the disconnect between the scientists and the business crowd. Scientifically it would be quite significant to see true quantum speed-up, as it'll confirm what theory predicts, i.e. that quantum resources can be harnessed to perform better than any Turing machine or classical computer could.
For the business crowd any practical speed up will do - quantum be damned.
I regard this as an opportunity to educate the masses that Quantum Computers are not magical machines, and that the qubits aren't fairy dust. I.e. you can have a machine like D-Wave that utilizes them, yet is still fundamentally limited in what it can do.
Please ask a any first grader if this amounts to the kind of complexity that is meant when people use the word "compute".
Interesting, wasn't aware of that, especially since in practice randomized algorithm often outperform the next best deterministic ones.
What informs this conjecture?
I believe in the descriptiveness of language. Does it compute? Yes, in the case of the D-Wave. No, in case of the flash light.
Does it utilize qubits as basic information processing unite? Yes, again in case of the D-Wave.
Hence, it is justified to call it a quantum computer. Albeit, it should be qualified as a restricted adiabatic quantum computer, or quantum annealer.
Until we know what kind of quantum computing architecture will win, it is ludicrous to pretend that there is just one way to do quantum computing. Adiabatic, gate based or the underdog quantum cellular automaton are all viable architectures.
It just happens that the first commercially available is of the adiabatic variety. Theoretical CS folks may hate this and try to police the language, but frankly this is a bit silly.
And yes, I post a lot on this subject, because I've been following this soap opera for many years on my blog.
The underlying scientific paper could already be misleading. But in both cases, as far as I can tell, this wasn't the case.
As to the presentation, it's the kind of typical marketing spin that you get anywhere in the IT industry.
If you want the truth and look at the papers, the truth you'll get.
Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.