« first day (9 days earlier)      last day (2311 days later) » 

2:44 AM
I think it's a bad idea to start limiting the scope of questions too early. Let the community decide with votes. It's clear that some people found the ibmqx question useful but no one liked the FTL communication question even thought I thought it was in scope. Uninteresting but in scope. haha
1 hour later…
4:09 AM
@AndrewO I agree, we should have as many questions as possible at this point. Remember this field is a blend of several and that means there will be physics questions, and programming questions, and questions about specific hardware (annealing, circuit gate, topology) and specific software (Forrest, IBMQ, Q#, etc). We should try to be as inclusive as possible imho. From experience, over time the details will sort themselves out.
2 hours later…
6:07 AM
1 hour later…
7:35 AM
@whurley Totally agree. Also, about your answer on the IEEE standard - I'm only a PhD student (and my main PhD topic isn't on benchmarking), so I don't exactly feel qualified to 'participate in the development', but I would be really interested in hearing updates about this somewhere, if that's possible
8:11 AM
@Mithrandir24601 Let me say 'relative lack of experts on meta', as I think the 'regulars' like us dominate the meta. Many programmers are 'regulars' as well. But, this is only speculation, I have no idea.
@AndrewO Alright, it's mostly that I think this is a rather critical topic. But the entire question becomes moot if this is the only 'pure programming' question on the site. I've said most things that I needed to say, so I'll wait until we get 10 such questions or such before I continue.
@Discretelizard off the top of my head - Daniel Sank, Emilio Pisanty, James Wooton. Then there's at least one PhD student (me!). Both DS and EP are plenty able to be vocal with any objections, so I wouldn't worry about that too much :)
8:28 AM
@Mithrandir24601 PhD student where? Just curious
@ItamarG3 Bristol's quantum engineering CDT :)
@AndrewO re: getting more academics for the site - You could contact some of the people involved with the UK's National Quantum Info Tech (NQIT) hub? - it's essentially a quantum computing hub
9:31 AM
@Mithrandir24601 cool! I'm an undergraduate in Physics, TAU.
2 hours later…
11:56 AM
@Mithrandir24601 Mainly Physics people, right? Not many names I recognise.
12:27 PM
@Discretelizard mainly quantum computing people :P. DS is a quantum engineer at Google. JW is at Basel looking at error correction and quantum advantage. To be fair, I believe EP is more of a definite physicist
12:39 PM
@Mithrandir24601 I'm pretty sure at least DS would consider himself to be a "definite physicist" working on QC, not a "QC people" (but I may stand corrected). I surely consider myself to be a physicist, and I'd say the majority of people attending QC-related conferences do the same
@glS The last time this came up, I do think he called himself a 'quantum electronics engineer', although that's not saying he doesn't also call himself a physicist
1:06 PM
@glS My interactions with Daniel led me to believe he is a Physicist. At the very least, I don't think he has done much in CS.
Not that that's bad, mind you, like SE says: "we respect this users laser-like focus on a single topic"
1:26 PM
@Discretelizard I feel like people from CS and maths find QC to be mostly a topic for CS and maths, while physicists still believe QC to be mostly a branch of quantum information science, and as such predominantly something done by physicists (which major contributions from CS, maths and others of course)
@glS Yeah, I'm almost finished with writing a meta post on this. Stay tuned
Q: How to be open to those who are from different disciplines

Discrete lizardThis more of a personal essay than a discussion, but I am happy to reply to any comments you may have. My main personal interests are with CS myself, but I am always open for other ideas as long as I can understand them or people have the patience to explain. Quantum Computing is interdisciplin...

@glS Please have a look at this ^
2:20 PM
@Discretelizard I find your comments subjective. Again, this QCSE is still new and it remains to be seen what the community will ultimately find useful. If people don’t think list questions contribute to the discussion they are welcome to downvote. As for upsetting myth proponents, I don’t really care. If they can justify their reasoning with facts then they wouldn’t be myths.
2:34 PM
@AndrewO Well, let me draw your attention that you have now 4 close votes on your question, 3 for 'too broad', 1 for 'opinion based'. 5 close votes close the question, indicating that it needs improvement. Do be aware that I think the general topic is nice, I've just created the tag.
So, primarily, your question is of bad form, unfit for SE, not for content. This should be clear from the fact that I posted a question on 'quantum bogo sort' and created the tag. Note that closing doesn't mean the question can't be improved, no, it means precisely that the question must be improved.
"What are some popular myths or common misconceptions". This is already very broad, encourages lists and is subjective. Let me start on the subjectivity.
On SE, we have what we call 'good subjective' and 'bad subjective'. Good subjective is usually questions that don't have objective answers, but do have answers on which most people can agree on whether they are good or bad. Such 'good subjective answers' are fine on SE. Generally, this would be advice. Interpersonal Skills contains mostly 'good subjective' and this is ok. Subjective answers can be tricky, but sometimes are nessecary.
However, what is 'popular' or 'common' or even a 'misconception' is not something most people wouldn't agree on and risk polarization and heated debates. These are generally considered 'bad subjective'. So, I think that your question is 'bad subjective', but please don't take this personally. This usually leads to people voting to close as 'Primarily opinion based'.
However, I personally Voted to close as 'too broad'. Because that is what it is. Better ask three questions about the same things than three questions in 'a single question'. I do think you can learn what the appropriate 'scope level' of questions is, but please be aware that SE isn't a forum, as forums are for discussion and SE is not. We want clear, concise and focused questions. You can learn how to do this.
Please be aware that my thorough review of SE 'culture' isn't intended to be pointless smartassery or holier than thou behaviour. I want to help you understand SE, as you are an important member of this community, based on my previous interactions with you. I think that if you trust the SE 'dogma' for a while, you will learn that it is quite effective, even if a bit curious. You understanding SE means that your mission of making others understand quantum will be easier.
Ok, finally, list questions. This is a bit more tricky, but there is a general distaste on SE due to how they have worked out in practice. The main problem is that they are, apparently, a bad fit for the SE Q and A format. The problem is this: SE is made such that the 'unique' best answer 'rises to the top'. But when there is a 'list question', the answer actually necessarily needs information from multiple questions to be completed.
Your question clearly risks list-behaviour and while this is something that we can want here, SE has a general distaste for this.
I hope you understand why people wish to close your question and how it can be improved. If this is not so, or you have further comments, feel free to ask.
Oh, one more thing. Please be aware that 'questions of poor form' are not down-voted by experienced SE users, but voted to close. Why not both? Because down-votes hide the question and hence reduce the number of people that will vote to close!
Personally, I wait a bit and downvote as well if I see barely anyone votes to close.
Oh and this needs reiterating: getting your question closed isn't the end, it's the beginning .
3:07 PM
lol alright
actually SE tried to rename "closed" to "on hold" awhile back. however (and this is maybe rarely acknowledged) statistically, closed questions do not resuscitate very often. critical to get it right 1st time. but no harm done, dont get too attached to 1 question, sometimes reasking wrt significantly different angle can work. ps the concept of "list questions" is part of SE mythology and not really documented anywhere.
I voted to close
@AndrewO Can you do that on your own question, lol
I think what you should do is improve your question. I can also help with that, if you like
Robert Cartaino on September 29, 2010

Stack Exchange is about questions with objective, factual answers. We’ve been crystal clear about this for as long as I can remember, even back to the earliest, pre-beta days of Stack Overflow. It’s right there in the standard Stack Exchange FAQ:

What kind of questions should I not ask here?

Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!

Thus, questions that are not answerable — discussions, debates, opinions — should be closed as subjective. It seems simple enough: Fact good; opinion and discussion bad. But why? …

@AndrewO one can find questions not unlike yours on other sites, maybe try some deconstruction there. its not always obvious how to formulate them. feel it can be kind of random sometimes what is accepted vs not. eg see something like this, comes to mind, notice how many votes. MathOverflow is unique/ atypical in some ways but it does have lots of experts. etc
Q: Endless controversy

Denis SerreIn principle, a mathematical paper should be complete and correct. New statements should be supported by appropriate proofs. But this is only theory. Because we often cannot enter into the smallest details, we "prove" wrong statements here and then. I plead guilty, having published myself one or ...

there is also a concept of a "reference question". one that the community agrees can be something like a public resource list question maybe a bit like a FAQ on some topic(s). can find some examples of these on other sites.
ah, is a tag on Computer Science. dont know if all sites have such a concept. there is likely some debate about it in their meta section.
@glS QC is a new discipline emerging as we speak. it is drawing from multiple fields. the boundaries are fluid and in play. it reminds me that figuring out the boundaries of CS eg in university context took decades (and still shifts, eg think about Big Data, machine learning etc). a CS/ IT expert physicist-wannabe just said in Physics chat, after QC topic was raised, "can we stick to physics in here". told him QC is physics + computation.
4:02 PM
@vzn Yeah, the 'reference questions' are kinda 'semi-faq'. Might be nice to have.
@vzn Exactly. This is why we should be open to ideas from all sorts of people.
MEE suggested it on the meta site. But I don't think it'll help much
*from the [help center](https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/help/accepted-answer)*:

# What does it mean when an answer is "accepted"?

When a user receives a good answer to his or her question, that user has the option to "accept" an answer. Acceptance is indicated by a colored checkmark next to the answer that has been accepted by the original author of the question.

Accepting an answer is not meant to be a definitive and final statement indicating that the question has now been answered perfectly. It simply means that the author received an answer that worked for him or her perso
4:39 PM
@Mithrandir24601 Once we get going, I can make sure updates are posted here as appropriate. I believe there will be a phase of the review where people like yourself would be tremendously useful for validation. If you're interested PM me and I can keep you updated on any opportunity.
@whurley Hi! Great to see your here. By the way, any plans of updating the Strangeworks website? At present it looks very "opaque" to say the least. Like adding the names and credentials of the people who work in the company, the exact work the company does, a news/update section, etc. would make the website more credible.
While I like the implicit jokes, animations, cool fonts, I'm not sure all the serious professionals/academicians would have a great first-glance-opinion of it
5:10 PM
@Blue Nope. :) Not for a while, and will probably note list employees at any time in the future. We will, however, be linking it to GitHub, and other resources. Already well into Enterprise accounts so not too worried about that angle too much. I do however want a news section and updates etc. Which we're currently working on. We're also adding a section about the standards and open source work we're doing.
@whurley Cool. That'll be a good start!
5:37 PM
@Blue It's a relatively standard tag across SE metas, although one that doesn't get used a lot. It doesn't currently have any questions attached to it though
@whurley Posting updates would be great! If you think that I'd somehow be useful, then I'd be interested, of course. SE doesn't have any way to PM, so is there an e-mail address I could use instead?
2 hours later…
7:23 PM
@Mithrandir24601 Ah sorry about that. I'll make sure the information gets out one way or another.
1 hour later…
8:35 PM
@Blue No, that tag is a meaningless meta-tag. Kill it with fire.
@Blue This could be a tag on meta, though.
@whurley 'PM', ha 'PM' is a feature SE lacks, with a good reason.
Let me briefly explain. Think about it. If I can PM a high-rep user, why would I ask a question with the normal sytem? No, I would ask my embarrassingly trivial question in private. But this goes against basic SE principles! I mean, being the first link on google is another goal of SE! Hence, no PM!
Hmm, bit hard to catch people when they're in Brazil! Ah well, I tried to 'catch a Physics student', at least.
9:09 PM
Sigh, why do you Physicists display so much ignorance on CS! I do get that you've skimmed through some trivial 'hard' CS undergrad courses, but please, assume massive ignorance of stuff outside your field!
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: For my own sanity, please don't assume you are an expert on the frontier of CS research if you don't 1) Know what FPT means, and I don't mean the Wikipedia definition, no, you should know the main ideas from the field (such as kernelisation and treewidth (latter is a bit more advanced)) and 2) Know how to make mergesort I/O-aware (or cache-aware) (If you don't know what mergesort is, take a course on algorithms first).
Unless you know these very basic but still non-CS-undergrad stuff, assume ignorance of yourself about the frontier of CS, just like I assume ignorance about Physics due to not knowing much more than Newtonian Mechanics (Okay, this is worse than undergrad level, but still).
Seriously, do you all want to get lectured on all topics from CS by a CS masters' student, still 'wet behind his ears'. I have only one word for it: Embarrassing! Okay, maybe another, am I the only CS-guy around here? Sure looks like it. For Pete's sake, you Physicists are almost worse than the Programmers. (Almost. I still have hope for you, I've never been able to get a programmer to go 'Ah yes, I get it. Interesting.')
Okay, that felt good. Needed to vent a bit. I hope you don't mind. Oh and btw, if you guys want a lecture on CS, just ask. Don't be shy.
I mean, so many people think they 'get CS, I mean I can program in Python and am pretty good at building gaming laptops and stuff'. (this is how you people sound to me, please reflect on this) I mean, I blame the awful name (ATTENTION ANGLOPHONES: Consider renaming your field into 'Informatics' or at least pretend you're doing 'information theory'. Maybe people will think you're doing non-trivial stuff. Once again, the Germans got you outranked and outpaced, the fastest since just before WOII.
(The Dutch wisely joined the Germans on this one)
@whurley Oh and btw, I'm pretty sure SE staff has already mentioned this, but I think they are okay with your company posting updates on QC meta and having them 'featured'.
I mean, that is basically what the SE staff does, so I don't see why they can't extend that privilege to their generous sponsors :)
10:08 PM
@Discretelizard Please don't yell at people when they do something that you disagree with
2 hours later…
11:42 PM
Blue has been automatically appointed as owner of this room. (What does this mean?)
Oooh, we have a RO :) @Blue If there aren't any objections, would you mind putting a meta post bot-thing (whatever it's actually called) into the room?
(this was briefly discussed a while back and it seemed that this was what people seemed happy with)
If there are any objections, then forget I said that ^ :P

« first day (9 days earlier)      last day (2311 days later) »