To be fair, as the author points out, they did it to themselves to get coverage to work on the project. The name means that WASM can be used in a big way on the web, but I appreciate the perspective that it’s applicable to way more than just the web. Even if the article title is definitely exaggerated for effect in service of that point.
This is probably my biggest regret with this article. Much earlier and much more prominently I should've explained that the title is a play on a running joke Andreas Rossberg includes in a couple of his talks "wasm does not stand for webassembly", poking fun at how they named it that to get funding, but always intended it for a more general use case.
I have a nod to it, as you point out, but I think its buried so far beneath the fold most folks have checked out and written it off by then. Live and learn .
The Azure Quantum website has some good resources for learning about what’s required for performing error corrected runs of Shor’s algorithm in order to defeat current cryptographic schemes: https://quantum.microsoft.com/en-us/tools/quantum-cryptograp...
You can also try a small scale simulation of Shor’s algorithm and a resource estimation sample in the interactive playground available via VS Code for Web: https://vscode.dev/quantum/playground/
An alternative to this that also runs in the browser is the Azure Quantum katas at https://quantum.microsoft.com/en-us/experience/quantum-katas. It has an introduction to quantum computing concepts with exercises in Q# you can evaluate in the browser, as well as a quantum focused Copilot you can use with login.
(Full disclosure: I work on the team that builds the developer tools for Q#)
Hi Austin, nice to see you on here! Glad you find it useful. If you want to try out the VSCode.dev experience too, check out https://vscode.dev/quantum/playground/. Let us know what you think!
Fair point, but still nothing compared to OS development, where you usually can't release a new version without having to worry about people trying to run it on 10 year old computers and everyone expecting entrenched, old enterprise software that uses all APIs you wish you could deprecate to continue working flawlessly.
A lot of developers can't have the luxury of using the latest and greatest tech because they have to worry about existing customers. They can't start from scratch without upending existing revenue streams.
This is exactly what Microsoft has been building towards with the Xbox. The espn app on there is fantastic, and just added the ability to watch two events in split screen, while watching a customized news/score crawl at the bottom of the screen. You can invite friends to watch with you, and participate in quizzes relevant to the game you are watching. All this with Kinect voice support too. It feels pretty damn futuristic. And now they've announced apps for exactly the kind of services the article talks about: HBO Go, SyFy, Comcast On-Demand, etc. Add in the fact that it's already a game console, and I'd say they are closer to creating a central media hub than anyone else.
Haven't used the Xbox experience so I can't really say, but it seems like this could be another situation where Apple doesn't create an entirely new concept, but rather brings it to the masses simply and beautifully. I'd sure rather have an Apple experience when it came to TV
I just watched the rugby world cup at a friends house where the TV had a volume bar that honestly looked like a sperm. Wiggly tail and everything. It's not that Apple will get it right, it's that they'll do it less wrong.
It's interesting the players that will likely fight for the TV space - Apple, Google, Microsoft... and maybe Amazon. I wonder if Facebook has thought about it, or if they're just provide the social graph and friend activity on top of Apple/Google/Microsoft's own operating system for the next generation TV.
And these apps work well. There is some varying quality, but in the same way you see varying quality of apps in any store - Apple's included - or the quality of content, which is out of any "gatekeeper's" interest to control. An App Store that allows fart apps will be the same that allow "fart TV shows".
What makes me a little bit sad is that 3 years from now, you will hear how "Apple revolutionized yet another industry", when what happened was just them using their immense weight to corner another market and executing on an already established model. Hardly innovative.
Yes, it would help show that the term "app" is generic, but that isn't really Amazon's claim. It's a bit more subtle than that. They are claiming that "app store" is a generic term for a store that sells downloadable applications. Apple isn't denying that either "app" or "store" are generic, but rather that the combination into "app store" has specific meaning when applied to the realm of applications that provide a digital storefront to sell additional applications. They might even have a case here, as these kinds of trademark things usually come down to whether or not the public associates the term with a specific source. Basically, it would be considered unfair for Amazon to use the term "app store" if it has a connection to Apple in the public mind, because that would mean that Amazon is technically trading on Apple's reputation. That's what the law would seek to protect, and that might be how Apple could win this case.
What I really don't understand is how Apple can do this due to the face that Amazon won't (and can't) sell any "Apple app store apps" on their store, so they won't be a competitor. For me it's if a company that produces patches to repair bicycle tubes called their product for "band aid", same idea but different markets.
That's not really a fair analogy because, while the Amazon marketplace may not sell iOS Apps, presumably they sell things which compete in the same market (i.e., solve the same problem). The Band-Aid competitors don't literally sell Band-Aids, but they do sell self-adhesive bandages that compete directly with the market for Band-Aids.
Are they actually competitors? Band-Aid sells bandages for people and other people have band-aids for bicycle tires. Apple has an App Store for iOS devices, while Google and Amazon have app stores for Android devices... I'm not saying its obviously one way or the others, but it doesn't seem clear cut to me.
Your response reminds me very much of Atlas Shrugged. That idea is central to the book. I recommend it as an interesting read, though not everyone cares for Aynn Rand's style.
That's exactly the problem. From what I've seen, the reason people don't want to hire overqualified applicants is because they know those people would be doing exactly what you are advising: coasting in the job for 3 months while waiting for something better to come along. There's nothing wrong with that from the point of view of the person, but what about the company? They spend time and money training someone, only to have the bail at the first sign of greener pastures? Where's the return on investment there? Employers tend to prefer to hire someone who at least seems like they might stick around long enough for them to get their money's worth.
I think that's exactly the point: while those myriad of technologies allow you to mitigate some of the downsides of distance, they still don't have the accidental factor that random hallway conversations have. I can walk by someone having a cool conversation in the break room and join in. I can have lunch with my coworkers and seamsly switch back forth between work discussions and personal ones. And I don't have to follow anything, check any mailboxes, or type any responses arbitrarily limited to a certain number of characters.
