I would like to commend Hartmut Neven (ostensibly the author of that post) for writing a very honest and technically correct summary of what happened.  It is true that D-Wave’s chips (attempt to) “realize the quantum adiabatic algorithm”.  It is also probably true (I will admit to not having read the paper where they show this) that a chip capable of realizing this algorithm could speed up the type of problems they consider.  It is true that “it is not easy to demonstrate that a multi-qubit system such as the D-Wave chip indeed exhibits the desired quantum behavior”.  Actually that’s not totally true: it’s easy to show it exhibits the desired behavior if it works really well.  But it is hard to distinguish chips that barely work from chips that don’t work at all.  Finally, it is true (within a certain interpretation) that “There are still many open questions but in our experiments we observed that this detector performs better than those we had trained using classical solvers running on the computers we have in our data centers today.”

The things that post doesn’t say are the following.  It doesn’t say what “classical solvers” and hardware implementations they are comparing the D-Wave chip against or whether this is actually something useful for real applications.  It doesn’t say that Google has any faith that the DWave chip is successfully operating the quantum algorithm as intended.  It doesn’t say that D-Wave chips are provably acting like quantum computers.

Here’s my take.  D-Wave has a chip that runs an adiabatic algorithm.  You can come up with a (possibly fair) comparison to a (presumably similarly-sized) gate-based chip in which the adiabatic algorithm performs better than the gate-based chip.  This could honestly be useful to Google.   Google invested time and money into D-Wave, and they would like to see a return on that investment. * If D-Wave chips never help Google perform any algorithm successfully, they can still help Google gain good press.  If Google wanted to generate good press from a “quantum computer” that wasn’t really working, they might release a press release which talked alot about the potential for quantum computers without actually concretely saying they had a quantum computer.  If D-Wave wanted to generate investment from a “quantum computer” that wasn’t actually quantum computing anything, they might make a succession of outlandish or misleadingly worded claims, respond to failures to achieve published goals by making more outlandish claims, and then respond in blog comment threads instead of publishing experimental results.

You may notice that everything after the * in that previous paragraph was speculative or my interpretation.  That’s why I called it “my take”.  I’ll tell you what: for every peer-reviewed paper in which they can demonstrate one of their claims experimentally, I will take back a sentence of speculation from the previous paragraph.

But why even care what D-Wave does?  If they create a quantum computer, then great; if they don’t create a quantum computer then who cares?  There are optimistic and pessimistic answers to this last question.

Optimistically: Even if DWave can’t create a universal quantum computer, they might be able to create something with computational power beyond that of a classical computer, and that would be cool for theorists and entrepreneurs alike.  Even if they can’t do that, they could draw attention to quantum computing and even classical adiabatic and annealing algorithms in a way that is positive.

Pessimistically: Every headline D-Wave makes with false claims is a headline other people can’t make with real claims.  If they claim to create a 100 qubit quantum computer and they really haven’t, then when someone really does create a 100 qubit quantum computer (a HUGE accomplishment from where we stand now) it will have an lessened impact for people who never got the memo that the first claim was a lie.  Obviously, funding is a big part of that equation too.  If real scientists don’t get funding because funding agencies (erroneously) believe that D-Wave has already done it all, then the whole field gets hurt.  Finally, it is insulting to real scientists for D-Wave to claim to be scientists when they don’t behave like scientists.  How is the public to distinguish a charlatan who calls himself a “scientist” from the read deal?  And if the public can’t tell the difference, why should they trust anyone?

I guess this was only a “quick take” in a relative sense.  There’s so many issues here of ethics, philosophy of science, politics, capitalism and (even) quantum science, that this discussion warrants many more words.  Other people have written some of them.  Here’s the thing: science is based on making concrete hypotheses and testing them.  What D-Wave has done so far is not science.  The people who are running D-Wave are not acting like scientists.  Now you insert your value judgments into those sentences and make of them what you will.

Ignoring that, they’ve got 9 days (by my count; maybe I misunderstood their claim) to reveal a 1000 qubit quantum processor.  Otherwise I might be forced to conclude that they are overly optimistic about their own prowess.

We tasted some of the beer fresh out of the secondary.  It was obviously not carbonated, and it clearly needs some time to mature, but it was really good.  So good I actually wanted to drink it at that point, which is not something I would say about anything else I’ve brewed.  It seems to me that stouts (compared to other beer types) really don’t need carbonation to taste good.  I’m not sure why that is.  We ended up putting alot less priming sugar in than usual for this reason (and because all of our other beers have been way too carbonated).  The beer has the typical stout body, although it tasted a little thin straight out of the secondary.  The dry-hopping turned out brilliantly; there is an aroma of hops that gets completely subsumed by the malt flavor when you actually start to taste the beer.  It makes for a cool double-take kind of experience.  I’ll probably wait another week before cracking the first one open for a real taste (I’d bet it would be optimal to let them sit for a month), and then I’ll post pictures.  So far so good!

I don’t think it ever occured to me that Wesley Willis was seriously mentally ill.  You could chalk that up to naivete or stupidity, I guess.  Your choice.  In any case, Wesley Willis completely rocked out one of his Casio-like keyboards and sang songs about beating up superheroes and acts of bestiality.  I’d like to be able to interview my younger self about what that music meant and what I thought of a guy who would write stuff like that, but I guess it’s a little too late.

Luckily for anyone who had the pleasure of being a fan, there is a new documentary about Willis called Wesley Willis’s Joy Rides, and Pitchfork has a link that allows you to watch the whole thing (legally) for free.  I didn’t watch the whole thing (because I was at work and maybe because it made me a little uncomfortable), but the documentary is really funny and a little touching and mostly awesome.

To make a long story short: Wesley Willis was born into a bad situation, developed paranoid schizophrenia, and still somehow traveled the world as a “rock and roll musician”.  He made funny bizarre songs and incredibly-poignant bizarre songs, and he drew landscapes of Chicago.  He died of leukemia in 2003, and I remember being sad that day even though I hadn’t listened to his music in several years.  He was fundamentally an artist, and the documentary gives some insight into that aspect of his personality.  I am very glad I had a chance to watch a bit of the film and see what he was really like (pretty much like you would expect, but even more likable).

Awesome side note: you can currently buy some of Willis’s drawings on eBay.  Unfortunately, his talent and his fame have driven the prices up into the 5k range, so they are just out of my price range.

Farm Rolls:  According to my mother, who made them every Thanksgiving, these rolls were a specialty of Florence Harms, a Home Economics teacher who was a “distant relative of [her] mother’s family.”  Makes me wish they still taught Home Ec.  Who do you know who can make rolls this amazing?  The rolls are sweet, yeasty, and a little dense.

Farm Roll

• 1 cup milk (I have used 1 or 2% without noticing the difference)
• 2 tsp (1 packet) yeast
• .5 cups shortening
• .5 cups sugar
• 2 eggs
• 5-7 cups flour

Boil 1 cup water.  Remove from heat and add 1 cup refrigerated milk.  When lukewarm add yeast and proof.  Cream the next three ingredients with a mixer.  Add yeast liquid to creamed ingredients.  Begin adding flour (I get 3-4 cups in with a dough hook before turning out to a floured board and kneading in the rest).  Stop adding flour when it becomes difficult to incorporate any more (no one has a good measure for this).  Dough should be slightly sticky but elastic when pulled.   Let dough barely double in a greased bowl (~30-45 minutes).  Punch dough down.

Grease two cookie sheets (I find light metal works best).  Form rolls somewhere between the size of a racquetball and a tennis ball.  We traditionally roll though piece of dough into a rope and tie an overhand know with it.  Should make about 12-20 rolls.  Let rise for another 30 minutes while preheating oven to 350 with racks about 8-12 inches from top heating element.  Bake until you first see browning on the top of rolls (start checking at 13 minutes).  Throw the rolls in a bowl, cover the bowl with a towel, and let them steam and cool for 5-10 minutes before serving.

There are two tricks to these rolls: don’t let the dough rise too much (or the rolls aren’t as sweet) and don’t overcook the rolls.

Cranberry Sauce with Port and Tangerine: I’ve pretty much stolen this from the Thanksgiving 2007 issue of Gourmet magazine (recently deceased, sadly).  It is simple and significantly better than ribbed-cranberry-jelly-from-a-can, despite peoples’ nostalgic attachments.

• 1 bag (12 oz) fresh cranberries
• .75 cup sugar
• .5 cup port (original recipe called for ruby port, but experiment and don’t spend too much money)
• 3 (3 x .5 inch) strips tangerine zest
• 1/3 cup tangerine juice (from 1-2 ripe normal tangerines or 3-4 clementines)

Bring everything but the juice to a simmer in a 4 quart (or bigger) saucepan over medium heat, stirring until sugar dissolves.  Simmer uncovered until you can’t find any unburst cranberries (12-20 minutes).  Remove from heat and stir in juice.  Chill.

I recommend making this a week in advance so all the flavors blend.  I experimented with adding a single slice of candied ginger (minced).  It wasn’t enough for me to taste, but I think there’s room in the recipe for one more flavor, so experiment with winter spices or other fruits.

Some Notes on Turkey: The actual recipe for the turkey I made this year is too long to include, but basic turkey recipes are ubiquitous.  Here’s how this year’s was different:

• I love putting butter under the turkey’s skin.  I makes the skin delicious and keeps the meat moist.  To do this: cream 1 stick up butter with several tablespoons of herbs, 2-3 tablespoons of salt, and whatever other dry ingredients you fancy.  Spoon on to wax paper and roll into a tight log about 3/4 of an inch thick.  Refrigerate overnight.  The next part is disgusting the first time you do it.  Starting from the neck cavity, work your hands in between the skin and flesh of the turkey, breaking any membranes connecting the two.  Try to completely separate skin near breast, back and upper legs.  Cut butter log into 1/3 inch slices, and place slices between skin and flesh of the breast side of the turkey (and the legs).  Cook the turkey as you normally would, and enjoy the result.  Visually appealing, since the transparent skin allows you to see the herbs trapped underneath.
• This year I poured some cider on the turkey about an hour before it was done.  Then I poured some more cider into the pan when degreasing for gravy.  I’m not sure I could taste the gravy on the turkey, but the gravy was amazing (I put two splashes of Calvados in the gravy after removing it from the heat).  Next year I need to remember to reduce the gravy a little longer than usual to thicken it.

Tom – cat whose job it is to catch mice.

Jerry the thief finally gets what's coming to him. Probably ends with Tom being brutally murdered.

Jerry – mouse who has no job but steals cheese all the time.  Prone to acts of extreme violence.

Spike – bulldog put in place only to make Tom’s job harder.

Mammy Two Shoes – Tom’s employer.  Overwhelmingly negative.  Also a racist stereotype, but that’s not the point here.

The thing is, not only is Jerry worthless and sociopathically violent, but he taunts Tom constantly.  And who are we supposed to root for?  As a kid I thought Jerry was the good guy; I’m not sure if other people agree.  So I’m rooting for a thieving asshole at the expense of a hardworking everyman whose employer constantly denigrates him and who is bullied by a stupider, more powerful animal.  Not a show to watch after a bad day at work.  In the end sometimes Tom and Jerry agree to be friends, and that’s supposed to be a happy ending.  I say a happy ending would be if Tom killed Jerry, got Spike sent to the pound, and found a nicer owner who appreciated his hard work.

Anchor Christmas Ale 2009

Anchor Christmas Ale – Recommended by girlfriend. Best winter ale I’ve ever had. I’d really like to brew a clone for next year, but I’m having some trouble finding recipes online. Two issues: Anchor changes the recipe every year, and it is actually a fairly complex brew with spices and some interesting malts and sugars (I suspect).

New Belgium Frambozen

New Belgium Frambozen – I look forward to this beer every year. Call it girly if you wish (it is a raspberry brown ale), but appreciate how few good fruit beers are made in this country.

This will be my fifth beer.  I’m brewing with a friend, and the beer just got transferred into the secondary.  Our record so far has been about .500; we’ve made an amazing Belgian Dubbel, a Scottish/Belgian which has an off taste, and a basic ESB which I found pleasant.  I also made a copper ale with another friend, and it tasted nice but unremarkable.  We’ve been brewing clone brews so far; I’d really like to start experimenting on my own, but there are issues of scale and cost and fear of failure.

This one is going to be a “Imperial” stout… my co-brewer has a taste exclusively for the grandiose.  Lots of dark malts (of course), Cascade and Golding hops (and one more I can’t remember), and a little bit of honey are the ingredients I care about.  This one is a little strange in that it was actually dry-hopped, which I think is unusual.  We’ll see how it goes, but I think it might add something interesting and make drinking through a whole glass a little more enjoyable.   (I tend to find stouts best in small quantities.)  I’ll post pictures of the beer as soon as I can; if I could post smells and samples, I would.