Nice bunch of extreme lies you have there. Not any surprise.

Here is the first one: In actual reality, the industrial value of gold is not far from its market price. Typically about 50% of it. Do you really think it would get used in industrial applications if it was 100x more expensive than the value using it provides?

That comment is so dumb and disconnected, you are clearly just trying dishonest manipulation.

Well, maybe eventually it may make sense.
But not anytime soon: https://www.schneier.com/blog/...

Obviously, Microsoft is prioritizing profits over everything, as usual.

Yeah, because all even/all odd is (from basic statistics) rare, and happens to be rarer than the percentage of people who play all-even or all-odd, so you'd be more likely to split any winnings.

Yes.

For "security' I must be forced to log in again every few hours and change my password every few weeks, but downloading random code off the Internet and then shipping it to customers... sure, that's fine.

Indeed. Typical MAGA-level of no insight whatsoever.

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.

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.