It had intrigued me due to its promise of designing lock-free concurrent systems, that can (I think) also be proven to be deadlock-free.
You do this by building a simple concurrent block that is proven to work correctly, and then build bigger ones using the smaller, proven blocks, to create more complex systems.
The way it is designed is processes don't share data and don't have locks. They use synchronized IPC for passing and modifying data.
It seemed to be a foundational piece for designing reliable systems that incorporate concurrency in them.
I don't get this. I installed the tesla app and was approved to book a drive in 1 week (last week). I've been in the Waymo waiting list for at least 6 months, and still haven't gotten approval and can still only book in SF. They do move slow.
your comment is not aligned with how science is done.
For discoveries you certainly work with limited approaches and certainly don't know if there is a "clear trajectory".
Some problems are problems but for a startup to succeed it needs to be a very important problem.
Having a unique insight is also not enough. It needs to be a highly leverageable insight or advantage. One that you can use in this startup; as you grow your leverage it will help you get users and revenue.
Neither seem true here. When that happens, the journey is a grind, you try to push hard but people don't seem interested.
how do I get motivated? well I have to believe there is a 'leverageable' insight or angle that will grow when I make progress ;) belief that it's a big problem people care about and that I am growing unfair advantage over time solving it.
there is so much skepticism on quantum computing that instead of inflated marketing words one should always start by what the biggest problems are, how they are not still solved yet, and then introduce what the new improvement is.
Otherwise there is no knowing if the accomplishment is really significant or not.
well I wouldn't be so sure. if you cook with it or add it to dishes (not drink it on its own, who would do that) it certainly has beneficiary effects and it is less of a cause for weight gain than all carbs.
"it’s not that hard for a customer to get their software working on a competing hardware platform and cut out a bunch of Nvidia’s enormous markup"
Agree and yet none of the contenders were able to work out their software play (Intel, AMD, chip startups) for more than a year which shows how corporates move slow.
Google is not selling their TPUs AFAIK and their tooling is completely focused on internal use.
So really interesting to see no one else is properly addressing the need even though they have chips (and the chip itself is much simpler than a cpu, a systolic matrix multiplier array).
It all depends on whether fortune 500 can improve their business processes using AI. It seems like it is able to do so, which translates to vast numbers of AI chips being sold in the next 1-5 years.
Don't waste time fixing superiors or whoever you work with, you are not in this world to correct those people, try and join another functional organization.
One option is to bring up those todo items that are not getting done. You aren't necessarily in personal conflict by explaining their priority and the fact that they are not getting done.
There is also a very likely possibility you should think of, that sometimes the director sees the big picture and what you think is important is actually lower priority.
If you considered paragraph 2 and 3 and they don't help, do the first one.
this is already done by libraries and how new instructions are leveraged on cores that have them. During init a library checks availability of instructions and sets function pointers to relevant routines.