I always try to avoid the defensive-triggering words (Agile and Lean especially). But I can feel you.
As @eferro.net pointed out in a recent post: Taylorism is way too embedded in corporate culture. Being stressed and occupied all the time doesn't give much space for people to explore alternatives.

Es denso, denso y más denso. Pero me hizo reflexionar mucho. Quizá más de lo que estoy dispuesto a reconocer 😅

Aquí se hace los Jueves :)

Esperando la grabación con ansía :)

Lo que disfrutaba corriendo por ahí :D

My experience so far is that many people believe they are way more productive on their own, than mobing.
Of course, they think productivity is about how many PRs they can create per unit of time. And this is what individual Performance Reviews culture rewards, so I cannot blame them.

I guess the declarative nature of functional programming makes it perfect to address complex problems by stating intention.
So I would say it helps, but nothing solves complexity. Is by definition not solvable :)

Right? It's so obvious!

There's a fundamentally wrong message being sent about this new thing we call Vibe Coding: Building Software is now a reach of everyone.
No, we are still very far away from this, but on the other hand, there are coders who believe this is not adding any value, this is also utterly wrong.

What I meant is the economic reality of funding such a complex area (Quantum Computing).
This may incentive some players to be in the game of disguising modest scientific advance as major breakthroughs in order to survive. But again, I don't think this specifically is the case.

I was just discussing this with @dulwichquantum.bsky.social :)
My point:
bsky.app/profile/thel...

I’m not a scientist, so I can’t speak for them. But the economic reality of something on the scale of quantum computing requires both incentives to be taken into account. The real problem arises when there’s no meaningful contribution to knowledge. I don't think this is the case :)

For this specific announcement, I don't think the reaction of the market was framed in any particular strategy. I genuinely believe there's scientific motivations behind this collaboration. The results are impressive, though far from conclusive.
Anyway, I agree that this is not always the case.

What if quantum discord is actually a driving factor for the improvements?
No matter what, I strongly believe this is a good lead and open up the exploration in a direction we never thought before, right? Maybe we can take advantage of quantum noise today and make NISQ devices widely useful?

... these use-cases. Otherwise the experiment would have been comparing against these techniques (?).
Anyway, there are still a lot of unanswered questions yet!
They switch entanglement for idle ops, and improvements remain untoched. Is the accidental entanglement coming from noise playing a role?

So the paper doesn't explore this.
They tried introducing some form of simulated quantum noise (Kraus or Lindblad I guess) without any improvement.
ML practitioners usually inject classical noise to improve fitting, pattern recognition, etc. But somehow doesn't seem to be a common practice for ...

También en español :)
medium.com/@atilag/comp...

You set the bar very high for the next to come :)
Outstanding work Mara.
Thanks for everything!

Es sistémico.
Va a tocar luchar