> This is just nonsense and quite distracting, even irritating. Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts. The spaced repetition questions are utterly superficial and represent unhelpful dumbing down.

I can see why you would think that. However, consider the following points:

1. One of the authors is/was[1] one of the most well known experts on quantum computing, and he literally wrote the book on quantum computing.

2. He has written elsewhere on how spaced repetition really helped him understand new disciplines and read journal papers.

So while you may not like spaced repetition, think twice before saying "unhelpful dumbing down", given that it really helped him, and he's very clearly not a dumb person.

There's no harm in simply saying it doesn't work for you. I suggest you examine the need to justify that by making broad statements.

Perhaps there's more to the Rust/Mozilla story that I don't know of, but going from the example you gave and connecting it to making things approachable to minorities is a giant leap I'm having trouble fathoming.

And while the statement is annoying, I did not find it in the least patronizing. I don't doubt that it helps some people, and I think you need to realize that not all books are written for you, and that there likely won't be any book that is good for everyone. If you don't like it, find another book - don't expect the world to cater to you.

When it comes to technical books, particularly math/physics text books, everyone has his/her own opinion and that's OK. There's no shortage of people who hate math books that give too many examples ("Just give me the theorems, proofs, and maybe one example!"), and there's no shortage of people who want examples and hate books that are "theorems/proofs". The same goes for pretty plots, color coding important theorems, etc. Yet not once in my time in academia and beyond did I hear someone say "These distracting elements and examples are dumbing things down and are patronizing, and it's because they're trying to appeal to women and minorities!"

I really think you need to introspect about your world view that led you to these conclusions. You're being triggered, and you need to own your reactions.

> Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts.

Although I didn't study quantum computing, I have done plenty of non-relativistic quantum mechanics at the grad level. It's hard for only two reasons:

1. Lots of introductory books start off with calculus-heavy problems (infinite square wells, harmonic oscillators, hydrogen atom, etc).

2. It differs from real world experience.

Plenty of people have advocated that item 1 above is the problem, and it is not a good way to teach QM. You get lost in the calculus and don't focus on the QM. There are plenty of advocates (e.g. David Mermin) who think QM should first be taught using spin, because it involves no calculus, and the linear algebra is necessary (and not sophisticated). Almost all, if not all, the fundamentals of QM can be taught that way, and it's not that hard. Certainly a lot easier than much of your introductory physics material (mechanics, EM, etc).

[1] I say "was" because he has left the quantum computing research world.