@glyph Did you quote post something?
Uncategorized
903
Posts
312
Posters
0
Views
-
@miss_rodent the expert I would go to ask about that is @xgranade and I am pretty confident that she would not be bullish on this particular likelihood any time soon
@glyph Fair, was just a suggestion for a potential 'next thing' that might actually work, though last I looked into it (admittedly been a few years) it did... not seem particularly hopeful as a 'next big thing', at least not anytime soon.
As far as I know it still has quite a few limitations and caveats to what it's useful for, and of course the major limitation of all computers, being restricted to, y'know, only things which can be computed or achieved by computation in the first place. -
@glyph Fair, was just a suggestion for a potential 'next thing' that might actually work, though last I looked into it (admittedly been a few years) it did... not seem particularly hopeful as a 'next big thing', at least not anytime soon.
As far as I know it still has quite a few limitations and caveats to what it's useful for, and of course the major limitation of all computers, being restricted to, y'know, only things which can be computed or achieved by computation in the first place.@miss_rodent I'm pretty sure it will be useful, but probably in some pretty limited verticals. It's definitely not The Way Computers Will Work and the things that it will unlock seem like pretty quiet infrastructural improvements and not significant population-wide stuff. Per my existing thesis I do think it's almost certain that it will, at some point, be A Thing, but it will not be Big
-
@miss_rodent the expert I would go to ask about that is @xgranade and I am pretty confident that she would not be bullish on this particular likelihood any time soon
@glyph @miss_rodent Yeah, no, I'm not particularly bullish. There's a couple parts to why not... while I'm quite convinced that building a quantum computer is probably possible, and we have some good mathematical evidence to back that up, it's been five years away since 1997. I'm suspicious of any particular claimed timelines, as the problems left to be solved are huge.
The other part, will quantum computers create a new class of easy next big things once built, that's more complex still.
-
@glyph I've aspired to "lunch-scale projects" for several years now. Intentionally meaningless—semantic choice in opposition to the differently meaningless "Web scale"—but generally:
- not for crowds (used by one person at a time, maybe a small group)
- bite-sized projects with a smaller scope
- the kind of work where I could fix the average bug before lunchtime
These ideals *have* made it hard to be persuasive in dev job interviews, alas.
All this to say I agree with the thoughts and CTA.
-
@glyph @miss_rodent Yeah, no, I'm not particularly bullish. There's a couple parts to why not... while I'm quite convinced that building a quantum computer is probably possible, and we have some good mathematical evidence to back that up, it's been five years away since 1997. I'm suspicious of any particular claimed timelines, as the problems left to be solved are huge.
The other part, will quantum computers create a new class of easy next big things once built, that's more complex still.
@glyph @miss_rodent The short version there is that we currently haven't found any *practical* problems for which quantum computers are *provably* better than classical computers by a large enough margin to justify using a quantum computer.
We've found impractical problems (she said handwavingly af), and practical problems like cryptanalysis where we have good evidence that quantum computers are better, but no hard proof.
-
@glyph @miss_rodent Yeah, no, I'm not particularly bullish. There's a couple parts to why not... while I'm quite convinced that building a quantum computer is probably possible, and we have some good mathematical evidence to back that up, it's been five years away since 1997. I'm suspicious of any particular claimed timelines, as the problems left to be solved are huge.
The other part, will quantum computers create a new class of easy next big things once built, that's more complex still.
-
@glyph @miss_rodent The short version there is that we currently haven't found any *practical* problems for which quantum computers are *provably* better than classical computers by a large enough margin to justify using a quantum computer.
We've found impractical problems (she said handwavingly af), and practical problems like cryptanalysis where we have good evidence that quantum computers are better, but no hard proof.
@glyph @miss_rodent Part of that is that it's hard to come up with new algorithms when you don't have the hardware to run and test them on, leading to a chicken and egg kind of situation. Part of it, though, is that what quantum algorithms — not programming quantum computers, but coming up with genuinely new algorithms for them — tend to require a peculiar kind of cleverness and trickery that slows down the search for new problems which might admit a quantum advantage.
-
@glyph I am very, very tired of Next Big Things anyway.
-
@miss_rodent @glyph I'd even go beyond theoretically possible, as someone who did a lot of quantum computing work. I think the set of things that would have to be true for quantum computers to be fundamentally impossible or even inherently impractical would be pretty surprising.
At the same time, I don't have any particular evidence that we're especially close, nor that there's any easy wins in terms of Next Big Things once one is built.
-
@miss_rodent @glyph I'd even go beyond theoretically possible, as someone who did a lot of quantum computing work. I think the set of things that would have to be true for quantum computers to be fundamentally impossible or even inherently impractical would be pretty surprising.
At the same time, I don't have any particular evidence that we're especially close, nor that there's any easy wins in terms of Next Big Things once one is built.
@miss_rodent @glyph Chemistry is about as close as we have to a field where quantum computers are probably going to be commercially useful, which could unlock some several dozen new exciting materials science things, but that's pretty far from (as to @glyph's point) what VCs seem to expect, where every company will need to buy up QC time. It might even be a bigger impact in the long run, but it sure as hell isn't VC's Next Big Thing.
-
@miss_rodent @glyph Chemistry is about as close as we have to a field where quantum computers are probably going to be commercially useful, which could unlock some several dozen new exciting materials science things, but that's pretty far from (as to @glyph's point) what VCs seem to expect, where every company will need to buy up QC time. It might even be a bigger impact in the long run, but it sure as hell isn't VC's Next Big Thing.
@miss_rodent @glyph (Sorry... I tend to infodump on demand about quantum computing.)
-
@miss_rodent @glyph (Sorry... I tend to infodump on demand about quantum computing.)
@xgranade @glyph I tend to infodump too, so, very much no need to apologize/I appreciate the input, it's a field I have looked into a little bit but not very deeply or very recently, just kinda looked into it as something tangential to the residual math/physicist nerdery that lingered after I dropped out of Uni.
And yeah, it seems unlikely to be a thing corporate and finance types would be that interested in, or if it will be does not seem like it will be anytime soon.
-
@miss_rodent @glyph (Sorry... I tend to infodump on demand about quantum computing.)
@miss_rodent @glyph I guess the last thing I should add is that there's a lot of problems where we know a priori that there *isn't* a quantum advantage — if someone spends most of their CPU time now on one of those problems, then they're not likely to be a huge QC customer, making it harder for VCs to sell quantum computing as the Next Big Thing.
-
@xgranade @glyph I tend to infodump too, so, very much no need to apologize/I appreciate the input, it's a field I have looked into a little bit but not very deeply or very recently, just kinda looked into it as something tangential to the residual math/physicist nerdery that lingered after I dropped out of Uni.
And yeah, it seems unlikely to be a thing corporate and finance types would be that interested in, or if it will be does not seem like it will be anytime soon.
@miss_rodent @glyph I mean, there have been at least two or three big waves where corporate and finance types were very *very* interested in quantum computing. I think, and again to @glyph's point, there's a large degree to which that can be explained by zero or negative interest rates.
Each time, there's a concrete event that sets off the hype wave, and it dies down when people realize that QC is *always* five years away.
-
@bitprophet you're the first one to catch that (I guarantee it hurt more to write than it does to read :))
@glyph the rest of the post is good too btw!
-
@miss_rodent @glyph I mean, there have been at least two or three big waves where corporate and finance types were very *very* interested in quantum computing. I think, and again to @glyph's point, there's a large degree to which that can be explained by zero or negative interest rates.
Each time, there's a concrete event that sets off the hype wave, and it dies down when people realize that QC is *always* five years away.
@miss_rodent @glyph Like, one time wound up being a coincidence between the timing of a complicated bit of tax... er... well, not *fraud* exactly, as it was all perfectly legal, so I'll call it tax shenanigans... around the F-35 project and the Volkwagen emissions fraud that indirectly created a gigantic hype wave. That was weird.
Another time, it was the failure of an NLP-based "AI" product that created a hype wave.
-
@miss_rodent @glyph Like, one time wound up being a coincidence between the timing of a complicated bit of tax... er... well, not *fraud* exactly, as it was all perfectly legal, so I'll call it tax shenanigans... around the F-35 project and the Volkwagen emissions fraud that indirectly created a gigantic hype wave. That was weird.
Another time, it was the failure of an NLP-based "AI" product that created a hype wave.
@miss_rodent @glyph I'm being intentionally vague here in public, but I promise those are both fully accurate descriptions even if a bit cryptic.
-
@miss_rodent @glyph I'm being intentionally vague here in public, but I promise those are both fully accurate descriptions even if a bit cryptic.
-
@miss_rodent @glyph Yeah, no, fair. It's a weird one in that I think there's a lot more there there to QC than AI, by a long shot, but also it's not the line-go-up kind of thing VCs seem to hope it will be, and definitely not on the timescales they seem to think that it will happen on.
-
@ireneista @cthos @xgranade this isn't exactly a "cheerful" thought, but it's also not horribly grim: I think we already saw it break down in 2020, and we saw both how brittle it is (nobody had enough slack in their supply chain to actually weather the disruption without exposing catastrophic delays to customers) but also its resilience (customers were super mad, alternate pathways DID come online in less than a year)
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@mariosiniscalchi
«Ma Enrico Mattei è anche quello che finanzia i partiti con fondi neri (sono sue le parole «per me i partiti sono come taxi: ci salgo, li pago e poi scendo»), applica metodi discutibili per costruire gasdotti in breve tempo ed elabora strategie piuttosto creative per assicurarsi un accordo per il petrolio iraniano.»https://www.ilpost.it/2025/04/10/la-storia-di-enrico-mattei/
-
Aiutaci a rendere l'Italia un Paese più laico e civile!
Iscriviti o rinnova l'iscrizione per il 2026.
Più saremo, più avremo forza e capacità di incidere! 👇
https://www.uaar.it/adesione
-
@shizamura @JenJen reminds me of
-
@quinta ne sono assolutamente convinto anch’io; anche perché già con Capitol Hill Trump aveva dimostrato le sue intenzioni e fu solo la posizione di Mike Pence che validando i risultati elettorali permise l’uscita di scena di Trump.
-
Mah
#parle
Par🇮🇹le n°1469 X/6🟨⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟩
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
-
@GustavinoBevilacqua @yaw ecco, magari un po' (tanto) meno elitista di una Castalia, essere qui per scelta consapevole sì, ma se la scelta è “perché qui vedo gattini e shitpost dei miei amici (o di perfetti sconosciuti) senza che vengano coperti dai gatti generati dall'ai degli influencer alla ricerca di profitto” va benissimo ugualmente
-
RE: https://thecanadian.social/@MostlyHarmless/115874030186694960
This is fantastic.
If this doesn't work...
-
I've been boycotting Samsung for years now. People outside Korea often seem surprised when I mention this—after all, Samsung is one of the most recognizable Korean brands globally. So let me explain.
It started after I read <cite>Think Samsung</cite> (<cite lang="ko"><ruby>三星<rp>(</rp><rt>삼성</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby>을 생각한다</cite>) by Kim Yong-chul, a former Samsung lawyer turned whistleblower. The book exposed systematic corruption, slush funds, and how the conglomerate wielded its influence to evade accountability. It painted a picture of a company that operated as if it were above the law.
But what pushed me from mere dislike to active boycott was the 2015 merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries. This wasn't just questionable corporate governance—it was engineered to help Lee Jae-yong consolidate control of the Samsung empire. The merger ratio heavily undervalued Samsung C&T, and the National Pension Service, despite its fiduciary duty to Korean citizens, voted in favor of it. Korean pensioners lost billions.
The whole affair later became central to the corruption scandal that brought down President Park Geun-hye. Lee Jae-yong was convicted of bribery. And yet Samsung continues as if nothing happened.
I'm under no illusion that my personal boycott hurts Samsung in any meaningful way. But some things aren't about effectiveness. They're about not being complicit.
