### Five announcements

Saturday, May 16th, 20151. Sanjeev Arora sent me a heads-up that there’s a discussion about the future of the STOC conference at the *Windows on Theory* blog—in particular, about the idea of turning STOC into a longer “CS theory festival.” If you have opinions about this, don’t miss the chance to make your voice heard.

2. Back in January, I blogged about a new quantum optimization algorithm by Farhi, Goldstone, and Gutmann, which was notable for being, as far as anyone could tell, the first quantum algorithm to achieve a provably better approximation ratio than the best-known classical algorithm for an NP-hard optimization problem. Today, I report that a fearsome list of authors—Boaz Barak, Ankur Moitra, Ryan O’Donnell, Prasad Raghavendra, Oded Regev, David Steurer, Luca Trevisan, Aravindan Vijayaraghavan, David Witmer, and John Wright—has put out an eagerly-awaited paper that gives a classical algorithm for the same problem, with better performance than the quantum algorithm’s. (They write that this “improves both qualitatively and quantitatively” on Farhi et al.’s work; I assume “qualitatively” refers to the fact that the new algorithm is classical.) What happened, apparently, is that after I blogged (with enthusiasm) about the Farhi et al. result, a bunch of classical complexity theorists read my post and decided independently that they could match or beat the quantum algorithm’s performance classically; then they found out about each other and decided to merge their efforts. I’m proud to say that this isn’t the first example of this blog catalyzing actual research progress, though it’s probably the best example so far. [Update: Luca Trevisan now has a great post explaining what happened in much more detail, entitled “How Many Theoreticians Does It Take to Approximate Max 3Lin?”]

3. Jennifer Ouellette has a wonderful article in *Quanta* magazine about recent progress in AdS/MERA (i.e., “the emergence of spacetime from entanglement”), centered around the ideas of Brian Swingle. This is one of the main things that I’d love to understand better right now—if I succeed even partially, you’ll know because I’ll write a blog post trying to explain it to others. See also this blog post by Sean Carroll (about this paper by Ning Bao et al.), and this paper by Pastawski, Yoshida, Harlow, and Preskill, which explicitly mines the AdS/CFT correspondence for examples of quantum error-correcting codes.

4. Celebrity rationalist Julia Galef, who I had the great honor of meeting recently, has a podcast interview with Sean Carroll about why Carroll accepts the many-worlds interpretation. (Or if, like me, you prefer the written word to the spoken one, click here for a full transcript.) Unfortunately, Sean is given the opportunity at the end of the interview to recommend one science book to his listeners—just one!—but he squanders it by plugging some weird, self-indulgent thing called *Quantum Computing Since Democritus*. Julia also has a YouTube video about what she learned from the interview, but I haven’t yet watched it (is there a transcript?).

5. I came across an insightful if meandering essay about nerd culture by Meredith L. Patterson. In particular, noticing how the term “nerd” has been co-opted by normal, socially-skilled people, who’ve quickly set about remaking nerd social norms to make them identical to the rest of the world’s norms, Patterson coins the term “weird-nerd” to describe people like herself, who are still nerds *in the original sense* and who don’t see nerd culture as something horribly, irreparably broken. As she writes: “We’ll start to feel less defensive when we get some indication — any indication — that our critics understand what parts of our culture we don’t want to lose and why we don’t want to lose them.” (But is this the start of a linguistic treadmill? Will we eventually need to talk about *weird*-weird-nerds, etc.?)