## Announcement

I thought the eight people who still read this blog might be interested to know that the FOCS’2010 Call for Papers is now out.

### 67 Responses to “Announcement”

Sounds like a fun time!

2. Daniel Says:

Scott, please don’t use the blog for generic announcements. It is very depressing for me to find these when I excitedly click on a new post in my newsreader.

I bet there’s way more than eight, let’s sound off! I’m THREE!

4. tdstephens3 Says:

ditto to Daniel – four!

5. zeev Says:

FOUR!

6. zeev Says:

ok… FIVE !

7. Mikael Vejdemo Johansson Says:

SIX!

8. Ross Snider Says:

Seven!

9. Alon Amit Says:

I volunteer to be the eighth, and last..

10. Tristram Brelstaff Says:

NINE!

I have just disproved a conjecture by Scott Aaronson!

I think I’ll put this on my CV.

11. joe Says:

Ten.

12. Mariano M. Chouza Says:

At least eleven and counting.

13. XiXiDu Says:

25, male, Germany here…not going to unsubscribe

14. Craig Says:

Sorry to confuse things; I’m still a reader of this blog, and I’m decidely uninterested in the FOCS call for papers. I’ll look forward to your summary of the new results, though.

15. Stas Says:

Scott, if you find some time to spend on your blog, the promised post about Ketan Mulmuley’s Geometric Complexity Theory would be greatly appreciated. I’ve recently learned quite a lot about the classical representation theory, though the algebraic geometry used is still well over my head, so it’s interesting to know what others feel about it.

16. David Orban Says:

Google Reader reports 3079 subscribers to this feed. That number has to be increased by those who follow it via other newsreaders, or read it directly on the web.

17. jonas Says:

Twelve (this doesn’t prove that all of us are readers though).

18. Morgan Says:

13

19. Mike Taylor Says:

14

20. asdf Says:

On the internet, nobody knows that all the commenters are actually the same person.

21. Eric Burnett Says:

15

I guess we aren’t counting those that commented but don’t sound off as readers?

22. Nagesh Says:

I too still read your blog Scott Hope you are having an awesome new year!

23. Cody Says:

24. Edward Pollock Says:

Reader here, but I make no claim of understanding the material.

25. Joe Fitzsimons Says:

Thanks for the link Scott. As someone not based in a CS department I find it surprisingly easy to miss TCS calls for papers.

26. math idiot Says:

27. Ross Snider Says:

In this post you say “the eight people who still read this blog…” and a few posts ago you say “for the female readers of this blog: I thought all eight of you…”. Implications? Do you imagine your entire readership is composed of people of the female variety? Perhaps you just really like the number eight. For the record I have at least one X chromosome. That’s one X chromose out of 2 = .5 of my chromosomes are X chromosomes. If I learned anything from High School Chemistry (darn that was a long time ago) sig figs round up.

28. Michael Chermside Says:

10000 (sounding off in binary, just because I can).

29. jr Says:

well, you can always start an argument about religion
or politics – seems to increase readership elsewhere.

30. proaonuiq Says:

“I bet there’s way more than eight”

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/scottaaronson.com#trafficstats

The interesting time series appears scrolling down.
Please note that Alexa “reach” statistics might not be representative since it only counts those visitors which
has installed the Alexa toolbar.

Jr, biggest bursts seems related with jobs offering (for instance Simon post docs in this blog) and not with political or religious issues.

31. anon Says:

Scott- I see that you have been promoted to associate professor from assistant professor. Hearty Congratulations!

32. Jonathan Vos Post Says:

I’d love to know more about the alleged promotion to associate professor from assistant professor, which, if true, deserves congratulations! I was so happy when my wife made that leap, and see every day what she does to get one more step up in the hierarchy, to Full Professor. What kind of portfolio did you submit in applying for the promotion? Did it include blog printouts? Is the path to tenure P or NP?

33. Raoul Ohio Says:

Re: Ross Snider: “sig figs round up”. That might be true in chemistry. but in scientific and engineering computing, integer + 1/2 (should) round to even (nearest even integer). In theoretical CS, they are vaguely aware of floating point.

34. Raoul Ohio Says:

Continued FP rap: BTW, for anyone interested in floating point, a great, easy to read book is: “Numerical Computing with IEEE Floating Point Arithmetic” by by Michael L. Overton. For an easy measure of how good a book this is, note the “Amazon Price” is still going up after 9 years.

35. Austin Frisch Says:

Scott, having just read the whole blog cover to cover, comments included, I can honestly say that all my other standard forms of procrastination are now about as exciting as a cup of gas station coffee would have been to Richard Pryor.

In other words, I need my fix!!! I can perhaps resign myself to the fact that I will no longer be reading a dozen spankin’ new (to me) entries a day, but the prospect of only one a month makes me, for lack of better words, a very sad panda.

Please post more; you owe it to me and Nagesh, and probably countless other junkies too bummed out to speak up! I’d ask you to refer me to another blog of similar quality, but that is widely believed to be at least NP hard…

36. Aaron F. Says:

Seventeen!

If they handed out Swiss chocolate at QIP in Zurich, I can’t imagine what you’ll find on your seat at a conference in Las Vegas…

37. Michael Says:

Eighteen. Or is it Eightteen?

38. Kai Tischler Says:

I could become the potential Nineteenth (19th) reader then; I am heavily involved with the old-skool (Web) (3D) App Dev Universe … But I have an (ancient) computer science background, too … At that time, I have tackled the famous NP-Complete placement problem … Probably these two directions have eventually led me to this blog … As a matter of fact, I could imagine to enter the field of Quantum Computing myself … Perhaps this Blog may whet my appetite even more ? Or is there a crisis in the Quantum Computing Community, too (asking this question because of the thread subject …) ?

39. Gabe Potter Says:

I still read this blog too. Guess I’m lucky number 20?

40. Ungrateful_Person Says:

21….so what if i am ungrateful?

41. Neil B Says:

Would they have an interest in Aharonov-style “weak measurements” that could reveal more about a wave function than thought possible? In particular, “thought experiments” that are theoretically interesting but not practical to do? tx

42. Robert Solovay Says:

43. Nilima Says:

this is ridiculous, but what a fun bandwagon to jump on. 22.

44. Nilima Says:

the absurdity continues. 23.

45. milkshake Says:

in reality all comments under this post (including this last one) were written by Scott – to win a bet that he made with himself

46. John Sidles Says:

Not true, Milkshake!

At breakfast I happened to run into Alice and Bob—who both happen to be huge fans of Shtetl Optimized—and they said they’ll soon be posting their final review of QIP 2010 … and perhaps some preliminary comments on SQuInt 2010 too!

47. Sim Says:

I know this is absurd but… 24.

48. Pat Cahalan Says:

Hardly scientific methodology, but good enough to disprove the “8” conjecture.

26.

You know, you’d probably get *more* readers if you posted frequently again (says the guy who hasn’t posted much in the last three months)

49. Raoul Ohio Says:

I intercepted a message from Alice to Bob and found that this thread is an attempt to experimentally determine Aa, the “Aaronson Number”, defined as #(respondents claiming a sequence number) / #(total responses). It is known on theoretical grounds that 0 .LE. Aa .LE. 1. The current best estimate to Aa is 0.541666667.

50. Raoul Ohio Says:

The current estimate for Aa is 0.530612245. On theoretical grounds, I predict it will be 0.5200000000 in about 4s.

51. zwo Says:

52. asdf Says:
53. Simina Says:

28. Although I’m not submitting there

54. Zelah Says:

Jumping on as 29… More seriously, a question for everyone.
Recently QIP was proved to equal Pspace. This led to myself speculating about the consequences of this. I came up with is possibility.
If P = BQP then would QIP = AM ? (due to equivalence of Quantum and Classical computing?) Thanks in advance
Zelah

55. Antione Lockerz Says:

Greetings. Initial I would like to say that I definitely like your weblog, just observed it last week but I’ve been following it ever since then.

I seem to come to an agreement with most of the views and beliefs and this submit is no exception. I fully

Thank you for the wonderful webpage and I hope you preserve up the excellent work. If you do I will continue to checked out it.

Possess a good evening.

56. Converter Says:

i would like to become the nineteenth

57. K Says:

58. A Jonesing TCS Groupie Says:

Rumor has it you’ve stopped blogging… Say it ain’t so!

59. Roloe Says:

could you please explain this limitations in a little more detail? ….. NP, or that factorization is impossible in polynomial time are widely believed. ….. state of spin-up and spin-down fermions, projected onto single occupancy on a site. …. and this is Khatchian result that LP is in P. His proof was based on …
Roloe

60. Dave Says:

Just stumbled upon this and after a quick glance at the past few posts I’ve already added to the short list of blogs I follow. Keep the posts coming. … And I think I’m number 37.

61. Cheezburger Says:

April fools day:

But it would be pretty sweet.

62. paul Says:

i would like to become the nineteenth as well

63. /* comment */ Says:

new paper from Scott

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0377

64. Raoul Ohio Says:

Shtetl Optimizers, one and all: To while away the days or months until Scott has something clever to post, I challenge you to predict the near tech future. My previous revelation of future Apple products (the iTaco and iSkateboard) were due a brain branch misprediction. After a brain pipeline flush, the next three magical revolutionary breakthroughs are obvious: The iPed, the iPid, and the iPud.

It is pretty obvious that the iPed will be a device that records and broadcasts each footstep, so your followers can see where you were tweeting at.

But what about the iPid and the iPud? Piddle and Puddle? I am not getting a clean read on these. Any ideas?

65. winer Says:

I predict that the market demand for wine will fall in the near future. After this a tax of $1 per bottle of wine will be placed on all wine produced and sold and after this the market price will rise by less than$2.

66. Raoul Ohio Says:

In a Quantum Blending theory update, the iPad, like the iPod, has been rigorously established to Blend. For the complete proof, see