In addition to the benefits above, by storing storing config in version control is 2 party control, presubmit linting, and easy rollbacks. I suppose the trade off is slower rollouts of config and some delay time in pushing out a config but hey, there's no free lunch :-)
PIPs are used as tools to lay people off or get revenge often. It's not meant to be an actual "performance improvement plan." There's many stories of people hitting all requirements within the PIP to still not hit "the bar" due to a constantly arbitrary and changing PIP requirement. PIP is often a cowardice way to do layoffs or for upper management to not admit they have too many resources allocated for their own deliverables.
Any problems where the configuration space is large, and you want to find some optimal configurations to the problem, would in theory benefit since you can directly map the configurations into the entangled qubits. Entangled qubits give you the ability to physically represent large configuration spaces.
The difficult is ensuring entanglement between qubits, scaling up the qubit count, noise reduction between the qubits and the other physical parts of the quantum computer, error correction, and generating the circuit to represent the optimization problem, formalizing a proof that the total time of quantum computation (computation + preparation) is less than to simulate on high performance computers and what not.
There's several YouTube videos where some company has mapped their problem into a quantum circuit and claim it provided solutions to optimization problems that they couldn't have found classically but dunno, I guess it would really require AB testing between classically computing it on an HPC versus a quantum computer.
Once something is released, there's general access given for that particular software/hw but it still needs to be requested. In a weird way, it creates some internal excitement on "secret" releases but obviously makes development much more difficult.
I've never designed such a system, but these are "baseline" solutions. It'd be interesting to see if anyone's actually implemented some of these canonical system design solutions and saw how well they actually scaled.
I think it's a good concept but I think this quote isn't fully accurate:
"Such reasoning implies that money is the only reason why people would do something, which is not true. Science can have its own value, because people want to understand how the world works. That is why they do science, not to make money."
Perhaps money is not involved, but there certainly is status and an general feeling of being "pure" due to being purely academic, and intelligent for being able to discover novel things. There is certainly some self-serving interests in doing science, not that it's solely bad, but it's not purely altruistic and for interest for most people.
If QMs generate a large amount of solutions and these solutions just need to be checked and verified for correctness, it seems more of a statistical mechanical system, where you a large distribution of outcomes may have specific solution, but it's not unfeasible that there's some solutions that are incorrect, and you need to do some classical statistics on how many solutions need to be checked to give you some confidence level on the solution.
The time to check solutions and time cost from possible incorrect solutions is unclear to me. And the time between calculations required to allow the QC system to anneal back to a coherent, entangled state is also unclear.
Communism isn't better; you replace elites with another set elites who control power and those who can produce goods and value have zero incentive to produce. Communism has been tried regardless if people come up with hypothetical governments and assert, without evidence, that these controls would lead to better outcomes for the average person. In fact, tried communism has led to the deaths of millions as there's zero controls to regulate the government when its the only system that contains power.
Uh, their reputation took a huge hit with the mass layoffs. If there was over-hiring, that's a reflection of the higher ups who didn't evaluate the economy, demand, etc... Yet most higher ups are still there, without any announcements that their bonuses would be retained or reduced for failure to hit their OKRs (KPIs).
You keep worming your way, distorting your initial statement. You initially stated the following:
>
Though engineering at FAANG in general is overrated. Know plenty of underperforming people at my company that ended up there. All you needed in the past is ~average IQ and willingness to grind
>
You have to be specific here, what do you mean "all you need"? Is this time to study algorithms? Because not everyone who studies algorithms, at the same rate, the same number of problems get an offer after an interview. Not only that, you're implying the interviews for other companies are exactly the same in regards to checking for IQ, which is completely laughable.
You simply assert that someone with average IQ that you know (and even underperformers) made it into FAANG, so you then broadly extrapolate, without evidence, that it means the selection criteria S for FAANG is simply a matter of if the person spends time studying and has an average IQ, and is no different than any under interviews.
Publish or perish produces such low quality papers. Perhaps there should be a journal for interesting tidbits as opposed to blown out papers, similar to scientific blogs. But I recall in academia, teaching was also underrated and many professors delegated teaching to the TAs.
Don't be pedantic, that was absolutely the intent of Arthur's post. Re-read it. He clearly insults FAAANG engineers as incompetent, then follows with FAANG engineers are just average in intelligence and grind. You're being dishonest if you think that's not meant as an insult.
That logic is not sound. If there's some selection criteria to select engineers from the general populace S, and a subset engineers who make it past S are average, that doesn't mea the end distribution of IQs (you're the one who brought up IQs) of FAANG engineers vs the distribution of IQs of the general SWE population would match in statistics. That is, large statistics don't just match because some subset of the populations match at some level. It's a clear misunderstanding of statistics and sloppy logic.
It's pretty absurd that you continue to think you're somehow making a logical argument and somehow think your IQ is above 120.
There's definitely testing but it's not at the level that it should be. That is, there's presubmit and postsubmit testing, but who is triaging the results? In addition, how often do we see people design tests to pass instead of design tests to fail and catch issues? I can't speak for Youtube, but some regression can be perhaps attributed to what management claims is lower productivity for new grads and mid levels, who are often assigned things like writing tests and automation (everyone in every company just wants to work on features). I think manual QA is highly underrated in general in the industry and catches so many bugs that automation just can't, and my guess is the manual QA efforts has decreased, and the discrepancy in output from seniors and juniors/mid-levels might be causing some quality issues (just my guess).
Why is the defensiveness "unpleasant" when you're the one calling engineers incompetent because they work for FAANG? I quote you:
>
In fact, most Google engineers taken out of Google are fucking useless, because they've developed a body of knowledge built entirely on systems that do not exist on the outside, many of which were developed many years ago to make hard problems simpler.
>
Who is making this unpleasant? You critique a body of engineers, using biased personal anecdotes and no hard metrics, and think I am the one being negative and unpleasant? Insane.
Good engineers relative to what? You're conflating averages within a company, to averages in general to software engineers in the market. And you're basing this on the failures of a product without using some baseline.
I agree that FAANG engineers aren't necessarily the geniuses they hype themselves out to be, but making broad assertions needs some baseline aside from personal experience as my personal experience with FAANG engineers has been mostly positive. That's not to say non-FAANG engineers aren't competent either, as I have worked with non-FAANG engineers as well and they were perfectly fine.
The intent of the OP was simply to dismiss anyone working at FAANG and insinuate they were all subpar and average. He thinks you can just say "from my experience" and that just absolves him from any criticism of his statements. It's completely disingenous.