OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG I DIDNT KNOW THIS WAS COMING SO SOON AAAAAAH *runs to closest bookstore*cancels all plans*

or you can listen to my ramblings here www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMyC...

Being square 🟥 is allright: it will be essentially a condensed version of the following 4 tutorials

[1] pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tu...
[2] pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tu...
[3] pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tu...
[4] pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tu...

Job ad 🧵 2/2
Quantinuum are looking for software engineer to help design and implement quantum programming languages. You need to have OPINIONS about types. Full-time, permanent, based in Cambridge in England.
#jobad #quantum #quantumcomputing #pl #proglang
jobs.eu.lever.co/quantinuum/6...

oh no! feel like this is gonna come haunting a lot of people soon 😅

Trans-anything flights are no longer covered by the FAA

Consider this a warning. Factoring small numbers is a bad benchmark. Because the key to factoring small numbers isn’t making the quantum computer "work well". That’s the key to factoring *large* numbers. For small numbers it's sufficient to generate a far-too-large circuit, and light the fuse.

firefox has this, also possibility to select multiple tabs via shift or cmd and then close with cmd+W :)

With people saying their results got debunked even though neither paper actually does or, for that matter, even claims that they debunk their results, I can partly understand not wanting to discuss the paper with said people in the first place.

Beautiful! Did not know that and definitely would have needed that before! F(ρ,σ) = tr(√(ρσ)) is so much nicer! Is there a good reason to still refer to fidelity/matrix inner products using tr[√(√(ρ)σ√(ρ))]?

contrary to its headline, the article makes a pretty good case for dwave imo

Yeah I was actually wondering if "spoofing" is the right english word. I think I meant "debunk", or "disprove" (in an unscientific / loose way)