Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Estimates based on conjecture (Score 1) 170

Your assertion that this information is actionable is totally unsupported by any evidence.

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.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 29

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.

Comment Re:quantum mysticism (Score 1) 29

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.

Comment No (Score 1) 29

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.

Comment I know a quarter of Tesla sales used the credits (Score 1) 56

And I think it's safe to say they're going to lose sales. I don't think they'll lose all of them but I would expect to lose about half that quarter or about 12%. Worst case it could be as high as 15.

A normal company losing 15% of its sales would be dead meat. Wall Street would cut it up for parts.

But people bought into Tesla when it was so ridiculously overvalued that everybody is afraid of being the one who pulls the trigger. Nobody wants to get caught holding the bag when it eventually collapses.

Meanwhile Elon musk's last two pay packages are worth about $100 billion dollars. If you're wondering how he's going to get that money since those were stock deals he's going to dump the stock into pensions and 401ks. To put that into perspective it's more money than Tesla can make in 50 years with the subsidies...

It's not a question of when company is going to collapse it's just which of the big four are going to buy up the remains and who gets caught holding the bag. I am pretty certain it won't be Elon

Comment We never learn (Score 1) 16

After world war II Russia was a burnt-out husk and it never fully recovered. Putting a criminal in charge of the country was the final straw. Russia was never a threat and there was zero reason to have a cold war with them except to keep the military industrial complex going and to line the pockets of well connected defense contractors at the expense of the public at Large.

At this point with Russia not even able to subdue a nation of 20 million it's stupidly obvious they are no threat so we can't use them to go booga booga at voters.

So China is the next step. And China for their part is happy to use America as an external threat to keep their populace in line. Because we've always been at war with Eurasia.

We never fucking learn.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss

Working...