Physical quantum computers have noise. Let's take a (simplified) scenario. You've set up your quantum circuit with one qubit, and put it in a position where it will measure as either 0 or 1 with equal chance. In the simulation it'll come out as 0 or 1 with actual equal chance. In the real world, other factors will create a bias one way or the other (this may not be consistent, either) so that it comes out more like 60% 0 to 40% 1, even over 1000s of trials.
If you set up a circuit where you've entangled two qubits so that they should come out as the same value (00 or 11) and the configuration says they should come out with 50% chance of either, the simulation will show that. The outputs of 01 and 10 will never show up in the simulation. But in the real world, there's still a chance that you get those. You'll likely (on IBM's quantum computers) get something like 1-5% 01, 1-5% 10, 45-50% 11, 45-50% 00 (again, over thousands of runs).
If you want to see how this plays out with simulations and real quantum computers, IBM [0] has free access (constrained by credits when you want to run on real quantum computers, they reset each day).
As far as I understand, it's because what it's simulating is a logical qubit which is different from the very noisy, almost instantaneously collapsing physical qubits present in current quantum computers.
Software simulates what's supposed to happen while the hardware only approaches it through many repeated trials.
That kind of highlights an issue for me though. If Apple were really on the ball with macOS they would have a better remap utility built in.
Instead we have Karabiner Elements which has been of mixed stability in my experience.
Many times I've had it completely disable the internal keyboard on my late 2013 MBP to the point where I have to plug in a USB keyboard to recover or if on the road do a force power reset.
I'd be curious to see if the crash rate is similar to the crash rate of other cars in the same class (BMW, Mercedes, etc). Is it possible that people tend to drive more cautiously in a more expensive car?
It's more like: people who can afford and buy expensive cars tend to be middle-aged, which means they are on the whole (i) more experienced drivers (without being at the stage of their lives where eyesight/hearing/reaction times might be failing without them realising) and (ii) less prone to risky behaviour of any sort vs (say) 16-25 year olds.
In addition, if you can afford an expensive car and choose a Tesla over (say) a sports car, I'd guess that probably means you aren't likely to be an aggressive driver which in turn means lower accident rates.
> Without spreading the achievements of science and technology to everyone on the planet, humanity is doomed.
Forget ethics/morals for a second - this is just patently _false_. It depends on your definition of "doomed", but humanity as a whole needs only a few people to survive in order to not be doomed (defined as extinct).
It'd be easier to argue your case without hyperbole.
Ignorant question (I'm not very familiar with the music business): what do the labels provide to the artists - why do they need to sign with Time Warner/Sony/etc at all, rather than just releasing their music to all distribution channels (Spotify/Apple Music/etc) themselves? I understand for smaller artists the labels can help provide advertising to them, but the larger, well-known stars you mention seem like they should have leverage to negotiate themselves?
PR and lots of logistical support. Much of that logistical support is also drawbridge over a moat that makes exposure on a large scale basically impossible without access and backing.
The idea that a person can create and maintain a fan base of millions without all that is attractive but infeasible.
Not sure it’s a good comparison. Comedy is a bit different animal than music. I’m not sure big stars like Rihanna, Taylor Swift etc would be able to become such big stars and maintain their fandom and deal with all the logistics of TV/radio promotion & deals, concerts, brand awareness and such alone without big studios doing that for them. I am not up to date on music but are there examples of big international pop stars who bootstrapped their superstar career without being promoted and pushed by one of the big three studios?
He was a writer for established media titans like Letterman and Conan, with other fairly-typical industry projects as well, with a TV show on a major cable network, before he really blew up outside of comedy insider circles, AFAIK.
You seem to assume the business of a musician is to publish music and distribute it.
Artists also make a lot of their money by licensing their music, or concerts, which are big logistical problems full of middle men. Big labels also give you a lot of PR and visibility.
I tried (again) to switch to FF yesterday when 57 was released, and unfortunately still ran into a known bug that makes it practically unusable for me: FF treats underscores as punctuation that breaks up a word, so given text "foo_bar", if you double click on "foo" or "bar", it doesn't select the entire word. This goes against all conventions of Chrome, other text editors, etc. It seems trivial, but as developers we deal with underscores a lot, and copy text out of our browsers frequently.
Haha. I can see how someone would think I'm trolling, but I assure you I'm not. It's a pretty deeply-ingrained behavior that I perform quite often, so yes, it does make a difference. FF57 is still not so much better than Chrome (to me, anyways) that it's worth dealing with re-learning this for me.
I don't know, if you develop and are used to being able to click a word or field of text, having to go through and highlight the word is more time consuming and potentially a flow breaker especially when you're talking about variables in some languages.
Here's my point of view as someone who's title currently is "Senior DevOps Engineer", and used to be a software engineer for many years:
DevOps has multiple meanings - in some (usually smaller) companies it can be thought of as a philosophy in that all developers are responsible for managing production infrastructure and their deployments. As a company scales, and the codebase grows, people have to start specializing. It's just not feasible for everyone to have perfectly overlapping skillsets and be completely replaceable by each other. It happens with frontend/backend, and it happens with "DevOps". I focus on our production infrastructure, making sure deployments are smooth, our database has backups, etc. That doesn't mean that other developers are completely detached from our production environment - if there's an issue in production multiple parties are involved in working through it and fixing.
I personally interchange the title DevOps Engineer with Site Reliability Engineer, Infrastructure Engineer, Ops/SysOps Engineer, etc. Different companies have different titles, but I'd wager that the majority of those positions tend to perform work of a similar nature. Depending on the size of the company, some may specialize even more (i.e. a large company may have SRE to focus on production/monitoring, and someone else to focus on deployments). It definitely varies company to company, but by and large I think it can all be grouped under "software operations", which itself is a subset of software engineering.
