We can't stop people from naming their projects/products the way they want. However, I think headlines in HN should be editoralized a bit to provide context, followed by the actual headline from the webpage.
Are there other examples of startups tackling problems that were only addressed by departments of larger problems and those startups then using their focus as an advantage?
I'm a software engineer at Rigetti, so I'll talk a little bit from that perspective.
One thing we are really emphasizing is having a full stack of software to enable hybrid classical/quantum computation. We believe that leveraging current computing resources as much as possible in a quantum computation will be important for near-term algorithms. Quantum algorithms such as the quantum approximate optimization algorithm very naturally fit into this hybrid computing regime.
There are lots of details about our quantum computing architecture which differ from the other players out there. There are different kinds of qubit-qubit interactions that we do compared to IBM. I will defer questions about these to other folks and our recently released white papers [0, 1, 2, 3].
From a company standpoint, our goal is to build the most powerful computer. Not anything else. We don't do ads. We don't build business machines. We build quantum computers and make them available with software. When you depend on it to survive, you definitely work a little bit harder and smarter to achieve your goals.
As a Somerville resident... what? We're cool? Are you guys talking about that one bar in Davis with the great cookery, or the Tuesday death-metal night on Highland Ave or Slumerville Brewery or what?
I like the way you think. How could someone determine if this occurred? Rocket sabotage seems like a rather perfect crime, very little evidence is left afterwards.
I think in theory it is possible by unary encoding attributes of the five houses then defining the appropriate weights according to the constraints.
In practice it might not be possible to map the resulting graph on the D-Wave's architecture, I can't find any good documentation on the D-Wave though.
The scaling on the simulation of the nanowire was dismal. Having effective quantum simulation would make such a tremendous impact on semiconductor development.
The scaling behaviour is actually surprisingly good. The time to simulate quantum mechanical systems generally grows exponentially with the number of states, i.e. the number of atoms in this case, but the listed running times grow only somewhere between linearly and quadratically with the number of atoms.
