And now accuse Peter Gutmann of the same. I dare you.

Incidentally, I know what is at stake. But I also, quite unlike you, understand why "QCs" are not a credible threat.

You still have not read or understood what I wrote. There is nothing wrong with Physics experiments. There is a lot wrong with claiming Physics experiments are computers, when they are anything but.

It's like the hover tank in Sargent Bilko. Not about being practical, just about if you can get the contract. Human nature is the same everywhere.

Not all of them, but most of them. Which is one reason why they like LLMs so much.

You seem to be disconnected from reality. The problem are not tariffs. The problems are unpredictably changing tariffs.

Your evidence has no connection to your argument.

The thing is, it is not a narrative. They have worked pretty hard at making it a reality.

Only by any evidence you have seen. Which seems to be none at all, as you so conveniently state. And that is because you have not looked. Really, all you are doing is showing how incapable you are.

What stupid-ass summary is that? What you should not do is predict a technology will be useful "soon" when all the evidence says otherwise. For QCs, if they scale linearly (they likely do much worse), they will be a problem for current encryption around the year 4000 or so. There is nothing wrong with running Physics experiments. But you need to see them as what they are.

Pay attention. These jobs are _already_ in China. This is about bringing them back. Which is a _lot_ more difficult.

Was it 21? I thought 35. I may be wrong though.

No, they have not. Some people did a larger, fake on a Quantum Annealer (which is not a QC and the computation is unable to scale), but for a real QC is 21 or 35 and that is with a custom algo (i.e. essentially a fake), not Shor's. After 50 years of research. Calling these "computing" is ludicrous. These are Physics experiments, not more.

They just mean "Ignore the facts, please believe this thing is powerful!"

Delusions is what keeps the QC hype alive. Substance and understanding has left the building a long, long time ago. See also the LLM hype, the crapto hype and several other entirely demented hypes.

Nice explanation from an actual expert: https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/...

It is all lies by misdirection to simulate an imminent usefulness that is not there and not even on the distant horizon. This is just one more of these lies.

They are just trying to make the dead horse look alive. Somewhat alive. There have been tons of similar lies for the last 50 years, this is just one more.

The whole thing is nonsense at current tech levels. The actual factorization record for QCs is 35 (that is 6 bit), and not with Shor's algorithm, but a custom one that can only factor 35, because it needs less resources and a shorter computation. That is not even remotely on the level of a slow 4 bit CPU from 50 years ago. After basically 50 years of research.

There is not going to be a useful QC this century and maybe never. These things are Physics experiments, not computing devices.