602 karma · joined August 8, 2025
It took me utterly by surprise when, after finishing my PhD, I decided it would be less damaging to my soul to go into finance. Even more surprising, I think I was right.
In any case (and I don't think this bears on your point, it's just something I'd like to add), building a quantum computer is very unlike building a nuclear fission device. Echoing my other comments here, it's almost misleading to call it "building a quantum computer," as that puts people in mind of 'unlocking' some single discrete technology in a strategy game tech tree. It's not that at all; it's a huge umbrella of (in many cases) extremely sophisticated technologies. The Manhattan project, as complex and astonishing a feat as it was, was a little closer to the strategy-game vision of research in that way. There's a reason it was possible in 3-4 years in the 1940s!
1. Sam Altman: [tells a tall tale to raise 100 quintillion dollars]
2. Outside observer: "hey, these so-called AI researchers have been pulling the wool over our eyes! They've promised AGI for decades. Where's my robot maid?"
3. Researcher who's been making steady progress in a niche subfield of optimization algorithms at Nebraska State University for the last 20 years: "huh?"
Here's what's going on here: there's a way that people talk past each other, because they mean different things by the same words, because they ultimately have different cultures and values.
There's one kind of person (let's call them "technologists," but I'm sure there's a better word) who feels deeply and intuitively that the point of a technology is to Create Shareholder Value. There's another kind (let's call them "scientists") who feels deeply and intuitively that the point of a technology is to Evince That We Have Known The Mind Of God. I think that these two kinds of people have a hard time understanding one another. Sometimes they don't realize, as strange as it sounds, that the other exists.
There are many scientists who have been working on problems falling loosely under the umbrella of "quantum computing" for a few decades now. Most of them are not literally Building A Quantum Computer, or even trying to. Not exactly. For this reason it might be better to call the field "things you can do with coherent control of isolated quantum systems" than "quantum computing." There are many strange and wonderful things that you can see when you have good coherent control of isolated quantum systems. The scientists are largely interested in seeing those things, in order to Evince That We Have Known The Mind Of God. One sort of strange and wonderful thing, way down the line, is maybe factoring big numbers? The scientists honestly call that a "goal," because it would be strange and wonderful indeed. But it's not really the goal. The scientists don't really care about it for its own sake, and certainly not for the sake of Creating Shareholder Value. It's just one thing that would Evince That We Have Known The Mind Of God.
Incidentally, over those last couple of decades, we've gotten way better at coherent control of isolated quantum systems, and have, in many ways, succeeded at Evincing That We Have Known The Mind Of God again and again. We have made, and continue to make, amazing progress. One day we probably will factor large numbers. But that's not really the goal for the scientists.
On the other hand, there are "technologists" who hear about the goal of factoring large numbers, take this to be, in some sense, "the point" (that is, a proxy for Creating Shareholder Value), and expect it to happen in short order. They raise lots of money and promise a payout. They might act in very "commercial" ways, telling people what things are going to happen when, using an idiosyncratic, personal definition of truth. This is understood and expected in commercial situations. They and their creditors may be disappointed.
The trouble is that it's hard for people on the outside to tell the difference between the scientists and the technologists! This makes things confusing. On some level, this is a failure of science communication: laypeople hear about breakthroughs (from scientists), then don't see the promises of technologists immediately fulfilled, they get confused, and they start to think the scientists are lying. But they're not! They're different people.
Another thing that laypeople don't really know is that there are commercially-useful and near-commercially-useful technologies using coherent control of isolated quantum systems. They've come out of the same research program, but aren't strictly "quantum computing." I don't know why it's not more widely known that quantum sensors made out of qubits (usually a different kind of qubit than the kind used for computing applications!) are on the market today, and beat other sensors along a variety of axes.
This might sound like goalpost-moving, but I promise you it's not. If it sounds like goalpost-moving, it's because there are two different relevant groups of people you hadn't previously resolved!
The thing is, a lot of ordinary people in tech are naive, gullible, more intelligent than wise, easily flattered, limited to first-order thinking socially-speaking, and obsessed with rules and systems. Then there’s another stratum of actors on top who are all of the above, and sociopathic to boot.
I don’t know, I think it’s just the way it is. I’ve become very disillusioned with the ability of ‘tech people’ as a class to work for good.
He’s one of the best people to talk to in the department. Kind, passionate and compassionate, interested first and foremost in ideas and people. No ego, doesn’t care about telling anyone he’s smarter than them (he is though), just wants to figure things out together.
The junior faculty can’t afford to be that way.
Also, every part of the system is like this, not just the language-qua-language. The architecture of the compiler is like this. The compiler UI is like this (yes for every TeX engine). The package management/distribution situation is like this.
It basically has two things going for it: it's highly portable, backwards-compatible, and stable, and it produces really pretty documents.
It is a little bit unfortunate that they don’t distinguish more clearly Typst-the-program and Typst-the-company in their advertising.
Appreciate the story, thanks for sharing. Can I ask what your thesis was on (in whatever way isn't too personally-identifying if that's a concern)?
For me, it's been invaluable for notes and memos (and my thesis). When it comes time to submit a paper, I transcribe everything to LaTeX. It's a pain, but it's a lesser pain than transcribing from handwritten notes scattered across three notebooks and several crumpled-up sheets of printer paper in the bottom of my bag. That's my own peculiarity; YMMV.
(Edit: also, ugh, I feel like such a goof for having written that. Thanks for being nice about it.)