Thinking fast and slow daniel kahneman online dating dating haverhill

Imagine that someone wrote a blog post bringing all of this to public attention.And now imagine that the response to that blogger was the following: “aha, but isn’t it possible that some clinical trial will show an advantage for the gene therapy—maybe with some other group of patients?

thinking fast and slow daniel kahneman online dating-71thinking fast and slow daniel kahneman online dating-81

It reminds me of the central tenet of cultural relativism: that there exist no universal standards by which any culture could ever be judged “good” or “bad,” except that Western culture is irredeemably evil.) Matthias Troyer (who, unfortunately, still can’t comment here for embargo reasons) has asked me to clarify that it’s not he, but rather his postdoc Sergei Isakov, who deserves the credit for actually writing the simulated annealing code that outperformed the D-Wave machine on the latter’s own “home turf” (i.e., random QUBO instances with the D-Wave constraint graph).

The quantum Monte Carlo code, which Alex Selby has a detailed new post summarizing his comparisons between the D-Wave device (as reported by Mc Geoch and Wang) and his own solver—finding that his solver can handily outperform the device and speculating about the reasons why.

This will be my final update on this post (really!!

), since the discussion seems to have reached a point where not much progress is being made, and since I’d like to oblige the commenters who’ve asked me to change the subject.

In other news, Catherine Mc Geoch spoke on Friday in the MIT quantum group meeting.

Incredibly, she spoke for more than an hour, without once mentioning the USC results that found that simulated annealing on a standard laptop (when competently implemented) handily outperformed the D-Wave machine, or making any attempt to reconcile those results with hers and Wang’s.

Even if not, isn’t it possible that the startup will manage to develop an effective gene therapy sometime in the future? And anyway, at least they’re out there to make gene therapy work!

So we should all support them, rather than relentlessly criticizing.

In another exciting update, John Smolin and Graeme Smith posted a paper to the ar Xiv tonight questioning even the “signature of quantumness” part of the latest D-Wave claims—the part that I’d been ~98% willing to accept, even as I relayed evidence that cast enormous doubt on the “speedup” part.

Specifically, Smolin and Smith propose a classical model that they say can explain the “bimodal” pattern of success probabilities observed by the USC group as well as quantum annealing can.

Daniel Lidar emailed me to clarify his views about error-correction and the viability of D-Wave’s approach.

Tags: , ,