How, exactly? All I did was point out that you and him are basically the same. That's not a good thing.

And yet they're quite popular in Scandinavia. I think they're just not popular among you wildlings.

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.

If you thought that, you are probably American, and therefore badly educated.

In most of the world, an engineer designs engines - and/or their control systems. (Whether petrol, steam, or electric - or even hydrogen).

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/...