Yes. Read the whole thing again.

Indeed. And it is even worse: We do not know whether there even is a possible solution that would be practical. So far, it looks like that even for the numbers for raw, uncorrected qbits, effort scales exponentially in the number of qbits (!) and the length of the calculation (!). And that is the easy case that does not give you anything worthwhile. Effective qbits are far worse. For reference, the conventionally computer revolution was driven by an inverse (!) exponentially scaling effort in the number of bits, and no dependency on the length of the calculation.

If your effort goes up exponentially, you have no chance for scalability ever. It is simply not possible.

No, I am not mistaken. And no, I am not "tinkering" with the system either. I switched Bitlocker off and on again. That is in no way "tinkering". That is _basic_ functionality, and Microsoft messed it up due to sheer incompetence. But I sense you are arguing in bad faith here, as so many MS apologists do.

That is really nonsense. Even calling this "fragmentation" is just an attempt at manipulating the discussion and not true. Sure, an enterprise may want to standardize, but that is really it.

It is a liability to guard against stupid threats that will not materialize soon enough to matter. For QCs, "20 years" is simply ignorant and stupid. Nothing "suddenly" will happen with QCs.

Tell me that you are clueless without telling me you are clueless...

The number of Linux distros is both a sign of strength and a advantage in itself. If you do not see that, then you clearly are a Stockholm-Syndrome sufferer. Alternatives to move away to is what keeps tech providers honest. Case in point: Microsoft. It does not get more abusive and dishonest than these people. But some cretins (you among them) apparently like getting abused.

It looks to me that way. I mean I have dived into Linux kernel sources to fix things and I have done custom init-scripts to fix some things (and none of that Windows-inspires "systemd" crap).

On Windows, it is just fumbling in the dark. I have no idea how people that post obscure fixes on the web even got to them and suspect these are leaks from people that actually get support from Microsoft or from people that have Windows source code (they exist, I know some).

I read actual science. And I am an actual scientist myself. Incidentally, I never predicted "gigadeath in 50 years". You seem to be math or language challenged, I am not.

The other problem is that what you thing are "realistic" predictions are anything but.

Ok, thanks. I think I will make another attempt. Win11 is really pissing me off with its retardedness, bad design and bad engineering.

Naa. Most people are born dumb, live dumb and die dumb. The average human lifespan is far, far too short to get wisdom.

It actually puts them behind. The bombastic language is also quite telling. If anybody uses that in the crypto-space, it is a sure sign of incompetence. Has been that way for 50 years or so.

Sure and if somebody discovers magic, the same thing happens. But is that (or a working, scaling QC) likely? No, not at all.

This whole "post quantum" thing is merely a sign of a complete risk management failure. Not impressive.

QCs are not a threat to encryption and may never be. The current factorization record is 35. Not 35 bit, 35. And that was not with Shor's algorithm, but one specially crafted to facto 35. This is after 50 years of research. Thing that tech is going anywhere? You may want to have your head examined.

Messing with established, known to be secure cryptography at this time is insane.

Oh, I am well aware some people recently used a D-Wave for an essentially analog computer factorization with more bits. But that one is completely worthless as a) the D-Wave is not a QC, and b) the D-Wave cannot scale. A worthless stunt.

I don't agree. The reality is that most people suck. With old ones and very young ones, it is just more visible.

I do too. A long, long time ago.