the big problem with quantum advantage is that quantum computing is inherently error-prone and stochastic, but then they compare to classical methods that are exact
let a classical computer use an error prone stochastic method and it still blows the doors off of qc
Stochasticity (randomness) is pervasively used in classical algorithms that one compares to. That is nothing new and has always been part of comparisons.
"Error prone" hardware is not "a stochastic resource". Error prone hardware does not provide any value to computation.
Agreed, it’s an excellent book by a great author. Bill is also quite prolific on Stack Overflow, and generally if you see an answer from him there, you can be confident it’s solid advice.
If a pattern is a common problem (e.g., becoming accustomed to a spectacular view) and generally-useful solution to that problem (blocking the view so that effort is required to obtain it), then an anti-pattern is what?
I think most people think an anti-pattern is an aberration in the "solution" section that creates more problems.
So here, the anti-pattern is that people use a term so casually (e.g., DevOps) that no one knows what it's referring to anymore.
(The problem: need a way to refer to concept(s) in a pithy way. The solution: make up or reuse an existing word/phrase to incorporate the concept(s) by reference so that it can can, unambiguously, be used as a replacement for the longer description. )
> If a pattern is a common problem (e.g., becoming accustomed to a spectacular view) and generally-useful solution to that problem (blocking the view so that effort is required to obtain it), then an anti-pattern is what?
Strange choice of example! I'm not sure I agree that your example is a common problem, and I'm even less sure that the proposed solution to it is generally useful.
Well you do have to be careful, because if patterns and anti-patterns come into contact it could cause an explosive conflagration of regular expressions all over the place.
> but in theory Markov chains have enormous expressive power.
as long as you don't care about the quality of what they're expressing. there's a reason they never did anything better than the postmodernism generator.
putting paint in a cannon has enormous expressive power too, but if you aren't rothko, nobody's going to care
Because in this case even if it were malice, it would still be of the incompetent kind. So as per the conjunction fallacy, it's far more likely to be incompetence than malice.
The fact that they were struggling for revenue just made the massive spend seem even weirder to me, but I suppose it could make sense if they truly expected to somehow get >4.4 billion back from ad revenue eventually. They also bought Wētā FX for $1.6 billion around the same time and did basically nothing with it.[1]
no, unity was dying for low profitability and ads had higher margin
I argued against the acquisition at the time, including against accepting the framing that it was a "merger", and I think everything that's transpired since then has validated my views.
Sadly, I was outnumbered and “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it” applied as it always does.
John Riccitiello was a terrible CEO
I think there's non-zero chance this company will go down in flames. I think its only hope at this point is a sufficiently motivated activist shareholder.
I have to say it made the later "Runtime Fee" announcement seem even more in poor taste as well, given that it might have had a big effect on the users paying it, but ultimately mean almost nothing to Unity against the billions paid for IronSource and WetaFX.
At 2¢ per install, with a million Unity games installed every year, they'd make a profit in 300,000 years.
let a classical computer use an error prone stochastic method and it still blows the doors off of qc
this is a false comparison