"Leonie Mueck, formerly the chief product officer of Riverlane, a Cambridge-based quantum startup, said Google’s statement did not necessarily suggest there would definitely be a working quantum computer capable of breaking encryption by 2029."
Basically more worried about decrypting currently stored, encrypted information with a future quantum computer. My guess is most critical encrypted files use symmetric encryption (e.g. AES256) and won't be cracked with a quantum computer any time soon (or really, ever.)
Doesn't surprise me in the least. The EV charging companies (except Tesla) chose pro-active enshittification over "drive up, insert card, start charging" like gas stations. I've never had to download a shitty app to fill my ICE vehicles...
The exception is Tesla - even with a non-Tesla vehicle I've never had an issue, even though you do need an app. Tesla vehicles just "drive up, start charging" too - there is no Step 3.
The amusing description of what would happen to Lolita if it went through today's workshopping and editing is worth reading, but the rest of this essay? Not so sure.
FTA:
"Writing with aspirations of publication must conform to revealed truths of rules of aesthetics and political dictum, to the exclusion of writers and readers who are not part of the industry’s monostyle, monopolitics, and monoconceptions of novels."
and:
"The modern male reader who picks up a modern sociological text masquerading as a piece of art can only expect to be patronized by going through an arbitrary and tedious process of discovering through a novel that he kind of sucks and was born that way."
This is true of mainstream publishing now, of course, but I can't quite see why the author uses "Infinite Jest" as the prime example. Apparently Cormac McCarthy hated Infinite Jest. But it's not clear at all that IJ caused McCarthy to stop reading "modern" novels (which apparently included most mid-20th century authors) as the title suggests.
But I generally agree modern publishing has lost its way, for the reasons quoted above. Even, so, there are some authors (e.g. George Saunders) who seem to still manage to slip through the gatekeepers, which gives me hope that all is not completely lost.
Caveat emptor. I am a grandparent now, so I think I have some perspective on this.
Of course we love our kids, and we had (and still have) a lot of good times with them. But kids can really break your life and marriage, too - amongst my peers I can't tell you how many have a struggling young adult kid or two (with relatively serious mental or physical health problems), with no resolution in sight.
So stay lucky - having a child is a wild act of optimism. And if you want kids, don't wait too long. There is never really a good time to have a kid (just different trade-offs), so for the best chances for health, be as young a parent as possible. And men have a biological clock, too: e.g.: https://neurosciencenews.com/genetics-sperm-mutation-neurode...
The serious mental and physical health problems are real and a societal concern. Everyone "notices" the trends, but maybe it's not you so you just think there's nothing you can do about it and do your best to stay healthy.
Then you have a child and you are suddenly hyper-aware of everything going into the body and brain. Everything they eat, every doctor visit, every time they get sick and what could have exposed them, every word spoken on TV, every friend they have and how they act or how that friend passes along their parents influences, etc.
And suddenly you're very concerned about societal level macro influences on food, medical, etc because those influences are going to affect your child's life.
There's definitely a balance here. Not giving a shit, which seems to have been the tradition I was raised in, is not great. Recognizing problems is good. Acting on all of them is bad. You need to raise grounded kids who can grow into resilience so by the time they're adults they're able to navigate this strange world.
Especially trying to control who their friends are and what they hear. Questionable behavior from friends at younger ages can actually be a good thing: it lets you plant the seed early when your kids still listen to you.
As a manager your role isn't to be the "best technical person" anyway. You still need to understand fast-changing capabilities of course. But you are managing people now, and the required skills are different. See below.
* The ladder is very competitive
It's always competitive, and in my experience it was the exact opposite - there were far fewer VP-level technical roles than VP people managers.
* The pay is lower (for senior managers vs. senior technical track)
Again, this is the opposite of my experience (besides at the first-line manager level, where pay was comparable.) Where I worked managers could quickly get paid more with more responsibility. I always thought it was because managing people is actually a lot less fun (at least for me it was.)
The biggest reason not to become a manager is because _it is a completely different job_. Although managers need to be technically competent, management skills are much more about people (and politics.) If that isn't your jam, then don't become a manager.
I think you underestimate the job mobility that is lost when you transition from being an individual contributor into someone on the management track.
The reality is, there are very few EM and above jobs, and job security is tough - if I have to choose between firing an EM or a SWE, I'd fire the EM first because I can always find another replacement or split their responsibilities across multiple individual contributors and the PM.
If an EM is laid off or fired, it's extremely difficult to find another role, and it truly is a terminal position. Why would I hire a laid off or fired EM or Director when I can promote internally or hire someone from within my network?
Additionally, back when I was an SE, if we had a deal go bad in order to protect our ass we'd blame the EM so that we can have a head on the platter to hand our CRO, unlike a seasoned SWE who can push back and argue PM requirements were unclear and PM can argue that sales+product was aligned.
Anecdotally, pretty often. Whenever there is an engineering org failure, whether it be missed deadlines, unreliable software, missed KPIs, etc, there is no such thing as a truly blameless org. Somebody will be accountable in the eyes of leadership, and that boils down to this very choice.
Was it the devs fault for shipping code with a disastrous edge case, or the EMs fault for over- allocating work, resulting in less-refined code and a minimal review process that let the defect slip into production? Just as an example.
Fairly often, but we usually manage them out so that line-level engineers don't get paranoid and jump ship.
When an EM is suddenly shifted to work on another project, or all you ICs are suddenly talking to other managers or staffed on other projects, that's us as organizations managing out the malcontent and messaging to them that their time is up.
I agree at the first-line manager level (which this article is about), it's tough to get hired from outside, so getting the same position somewhere else after a layoff will be a tough job search.
My comment was more on the next levels - there seemed to be about as many high-level technical roles as managers (paid similarly) where I worked in biotech (that might be a different situation for software-only companies.) And there were more Directors/VP's than Principals/Fellows for sure. So at some point the "ladder width" crosses over.
And if you get laid off as a senior IC, good luck getting hired into another IC position. Age discrimination is real. The robust network is a must for anyone, manager or IC, in this case.
> My comment was more on the next levels - there seemed to be about as many high-level technical roles as managers (paid similarly) where I worked in biotech (that might be a different situation for software-only companies.) And there were more Directors/VP's than Principals/Fellows for sure. So at some point the "ladder width" crosses over.
Yea. Biotech is different. The equivalent of a VP for a specific formulation at a Pfizer would be a Staff or Principal Product Manager at a Salesforce.
In software, Engineering Managers have increasingly become solely people+program managers with a bit of a technical component.
EMs aren't expected to own product - that's PMs. Additonally, EMs aren't expected to own architecture - that's Principal and Distinguished Engineers. All that leaves EMs is program management.
I think you over estimate how valuable really good Principal level talent is when you have AIs that can take over for entire teams.
As an older and higher up engineer, I worry more for the youngsters than myself. I'll find a spot. I'm using AI, I'm doing things at rates that are pretty crazy.
That's all powered by decades of good decision making practice. Youngsters don't have that. They don't have the painful lessons hard earned.
> I think you over estimate how valuable really good Principal level talent is when you have AIs that can take over for entire teams.
I think you mean underestimate.
A good principal engineer (and they almost always are good) is someone who can understand both business requirements as well as the architectural foundations that underlay the product itself.
Principal (and Principal track Staff, Senior, and early-career) SWEs aren't going anywhere. In fact in an LLM-driven world, their domain experience is much more critical.
Couldn't find any cost estimate, but from https://openquantumdesign.org/the-quantum-computer (scroll down to "What's Inside") I'm guessing 100's of k$ for the bill of materials (let alone keeping the thing going.)
So the "you" in "your own" has to have pretty deep pockets...for a relatively low fidelity 30 qubit device.
Banking Company LLC presents: Quantum Loans™
"Your money is simultaneously yours and ours until you check your balance."
Superposition Financing:
Your loan exists in all possible amounts until observed. Checking your balance collapses the wavefunction — so we recommend you simply... don't. Ignorance isn't just bliss, it's financially optimal.
Multiverse Co-signing:
Split the debt across all versions of yourself in the multiverse. Sure, some of you will default — but statistically, infinite yous means infinite revenue for us.
Entangled Interest Rates:
Your rate is entangled with a partner borrower chosen at random. If they pay on time, your rate drops.
Payment Clusters:
Forget monthly installments. Payments arrive in probabilistic clusters — sometimes three in a week, sometimes none for a year. We can't predict when, and neither can you. It's not a bug, it's quantum mechanics.
The real joke here is how close these quips are to the reality of modern day financial markets. Specifically, lending and hedging, are time entangled and value within the markets exist in superposition.
Most of the cost is in overpriced laser systems; if that gets solved a trapped-ion system could be reproduced for few tens of thousands of USDs. Still not a hobby weekend project, but certainly more attainable for more universities.
I was gonna say, at that price the cost in a University setting would be nothing in terms of the experience and teaching/learning opportunities provided. Game changer in terms of scaling education which bodes well for the future
I will note that 1.6 Gbit/mm2 in 301 layers works out to about 5 MBit/mm2 - compare that to mag tape which is 300 MBit/mm2 (30 Gbit/cm2). I bet tape at this areal density would last a long time too...
The graph showing risk factors in age groups 18-49 is interesting - obesity, "sugary drinks (>2/day)", and sedentary lifestyle (>2 hr TV/day) are each about 1.5-2x increase in risk factor. Obesity has roughly doubled over this time period, and people are more sedentary. What I could find about "sugary drinks" seems to indicate it hasn't changed much or even dropped slightly over this time. So obesity/sedentary lifestyle probably explains a lot of the increase (maybe not everything, but probably close; a 50% increase in population incidence, where a ~2x risk factor affected ~50% of the population would explain it.)
Obviously this is just anecdotal and you could still be correct, but the two celebrities the article cited (Chadwick Boseman and James Van Der Beek) don’t seem to fit that mold.
"Leonie Mueck, formerly the chief product officer of Riverlane, a Cambridge-based quantum startup, said Google’s statement did not necessarily suggest there would definitely be a working quantum computer capable of breaking encryption by 2029."
Basically more worried about decrypting currently stored, encrypted information with a future quantum computer. My guess is most critical encrypted files use symmetric encryption (e.g. AES256) and won't be cracked with a quantum computer any time soon (or really, ever.)
reply