3 Replies to “First Quantum Computing Theorist in Esquire?”
I went into this field for the money and the women. Now I know I’m on the right track! (and maybe there will be cigars, too…)
The article is sort of terrible, though, in a technical sense. I’ve gotten used to the level of mangling inflicted on quantum stuff by publications like the NYT or the Economist, but bits like “every possible logarithm computable”, or “a quantum chain reaction that crashes the system” are a tad painful.
Then again, maybe there isn’t a way to explain QI/QC correctly at this level — although “The challenge is to figure out how to do a computation in such a way that if one or two quantum bits go wrong, you can still reconstruct the original quantum state” is pretty good.
I went into this field for the money and the women. Now I know I’m on the right track! (and maybe there will be cigars, too…)
The article is sort of terrible, though, in a technical sense. I’ve gotten used to the level of mangling inflicted on quantum stuff by publications like the NYT or the Economist, but bits like “every possible logarithm computable”, or “a quantum chain reaction that crashes the system” are a tad painful.
Then again, maybe there isn’t a way to explain QI/QC correctly at this level — although “The challenge is to figure out how to do a computation in such a way that if one or two quantum bits go wrong, you can still reconstruct the original quantum state” is pretty good.
I was just trying to make the experimentalists jealous 🙂
Wait, first quantum computing theorist in Esquire? Does that mean some experimentalist beat me there?