ablatt89

I believe CDPush still has some latency involved which would be slower than reading raw config data from a DB.

In addition to the benefits above, by storing storing config in version control is 2 party control, presubmit linting, and easy rollbacks. I suppose the trade off is slower rollouts of config and some delay time in pushing out a config but hey, there's no free lunch :-)

PIPs are used as tools to lay people off or get revenge often. It's not meant to be an actual "performance improvement plan." There's many stories of people hitting all requirements within the PIP to still not hit "the bar" due to a constantly arbitrary and changing PIP requirement. PIP is often a cowardice way to do layoffs or for upper management to not admit they have too many resources allocated for their own deliverables.

Any problems where the configuration space is large, and you want to find some optimal configurations to the problem, would in theory benefit since you can directly map the configurations into the entangled qubits. Entangled qubits give you the ability to physically represent large configuration spaces.

The difficult is ensuring entanglement between qubits, scaling up the qubit count, noise reduction between the qubits and the other physical parts of the quantum computer, error correction, and generating the circuit to represent the optimization problem, formalizing a proof that the total time of quantum computation (computation + preparation) is less than to simulate on high performance computers and what not.

There's several YouTube videos where some company has mapped their problem into a quantum circuit and claim it provided solutions to optimization problems that they couldn't have found classically but dunno, I guess it would really require AB testing between classically computing it on an HPC versus a quantum computer.

Once something is released, there's general access given for that particular software/hw but it still needs to be requested. In a weird way, it creates some internal excitement on "secret" releases but obviously makes development much more difficult.

I think it's a good concept but I think this quote isn't fully accurate:

"Such reasoning implies that money is the only reason why people would do something, which is not true. Science can have its own value, because people want to understand how the world works. That is why they do science, not to make money."

Perhaps money is not involved, but there certainly is status and an general feeling of being "pure" due to being purely academic, and intelligent for being able to discover novel things. There is certainly some self-serving interests in doing science, not that it's solely bad, but it's not purely altruistic and for interest for most people.

If QMs generate a large amount of solutions and these solutions just need to be checked and verified for correctness, it seems more of a statistical mechanical system, where you a large distribution of outcomes may have specific solution, but it's not unfeasible that there's some solutions that are incorrect, and you need to do some classical statistics on how many solutions need to be checked to give you some confidence level on the solution.

The time to check solutions and time cost from possible incorrect solutions is unclear to me. And the time between calculations required to allow the QC system to anneal back to a coherent, entangled state is also unclear.

Would TCI recommend they lay off their own staff or reduce their staff salaries due to such abysmal returns also? Lol.

Communism isn't better; you replace elites with another set elites who control power and those who can produce goods and value have zero incentive to produce. Communism has been tried regardless if people come up with hypothetical governments and assert, without evidence, that these controls would lead to better outcomes for the average person. In fact, tried communism has led to the deaths of millions as there's zero controls to regulate the government when its the only system that contains power.

Uh, their reputation took a huge hit with the mass layoffs. If there was over-hiring, that's a reflection of the higher ups who didn't evaluate the economy, demand, etc... Yet most higher ups are still there, without any announcements that their bonuses would be retained or reduced for failure to hit their OKRs (KPIs).

You keep worming your way, distorting your initial statement. You initially stated the following:

> Though engineering at FAANG in general is overrated. Know plenty of underperforming people at my company that ended up there. All you needed in the past is ~average IQ and willingness to grind >

You have to be specific here, what do you mean "all you need"? Is this time to study algorithms? Because not everyone who studies algorithms, at the same rate, the same number of problems get an offer after an interview. Not only that, you're implying the interviews for other companies are exactly the same in regards to checking for IQ, which is completely laughable.

You simply assert that someone with average IQ that you know (and even underperformers) made it into FAANG, so you then broadly extrapolate, without evidence, that it means the selection criteria S for FAANG is simply a matter of if the person spends time studying and has an average IQ, and is no different than any under interviews.

Astounding.

Publish or perish produces such low quality papers. Perhaps there should be a journal for interesting tidbits as opposed to blown out papers, similar to scientific blogs. But I recall in academia, teaching was also underrated and many professors delegated teaching to the TAs.

Don't be pedantic, that was absolutely the intent of Arthur's post. Re-read it. He clearly insults FAAANG engineers as incompetent, then follows with FAANG engineers are just average in intelligence and grind. You're being dishonest if you think that's not meant as an insult.

That logic is not sound. If there's some selection criteria to select engineers from the general populace S, and a subset engineers who make it past S are average, that doesn't mea the end distribution of IQs (you're the one who brought up IQs) of FAANG engineers vs the distribution of IQs of the general SWE population would match in statistics. That is, large statistics don't just match because some subset of the populations match at some level. It's a clear misunderstanding of statistics and sloppy logic.

It's pretty absurd that you continue to think you're somehow making a logical argument and somehow think your IQ is above 120.