100%

I'm an electrical engineer and don't use AI because the things I design and build have to actually work.

Ahhhhhh, I think I get what's going on here. You're a conspiracy theorist about whether quantum computers will ever become powerful enough to crack RSA or whatever else. You know they never will. You know the truth. You have the secret knowledge.

And all these companies and scientists with PhDs and whoever else are just wasting their time and throwing money in a furnace. They're doing it to enrich themselves or to generate hype or for job security, but you know the truth that it will never become actually useful.

This explains your focus on any negative fact or instance of hype or prediction that didn't pan out. These things confirm your beliefs.

Hey, it's a free country. You're entitled to your opinion. Again, those who say something can't be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Ok, sure. People hype the potential usefulness of their research too. It seems like you're expecting every research direction of a complex new technology like quantum computers to quickly pan out. That's unrealistic. I also don't get why this bothers you so much. Superconducting quantum computers use Josephson junctions, and a few of those exist. But it doesn't matter: Even if that technology was a dead end, there are still other viable ways to build quantum computers, some of which might have more favorable properties.

There is actual progress in the number of low error qubits in these computers, in how long they can maintain entanglement, and so forth. It's hard. Smart people with funding are working on it; they'll figure it out if they keep at it. It takes time. If people oversell the potential future usefulness of early research, that's unfortunate, but I guess it's part of the game.

If Wikipedia is right, there wasn't a working quantum gate before 1995 nor a working quantum computer before 1998. Both are more recent than 35 years ago. Any speculation about the capabilities of quantum computers 35 years ago prior to an actual physical realization would have been theoretical.

Those who say something cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. If research into quantum computing continues, I have no doubt they will eventually figure out how to make a useful quantum computer. This stuff is really hard; it's not surprising that it takes a lot of time, funding, and expertise. Hopefully they create neat spinoff technologies along the way.

The amount of hype in news articles about scientific discoveries is unfortunate but not particularly surprising. Given your user ID, I would have expected you to be aware of this. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing_and_communication, the first quantum logic gate was built in 1995 (30 years ago), the first quantum computer—a whopping 2 qubits—in 1998 (27 years ago). If anyone was talking about what quantum computers could do 35 years ago (1990), it was pure future-looking theoretical possibility and nothing more.

They're publishing the actual paper on Monday; stay tuned to see what it says.

Apparently not. From https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/10/24/forthcoming-ibm-paper-expected-to-show-quantum-algorithm-running-on-inexpensive-amd-chips/,

and

It sounds like the error correction algorithm takes in data about the qubits and suggests some way to manipulate them to correct errors. So qubits still need to be monitored and manipulated, but the procedure for doing so can be computed on conventional hardware.

"I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted." –W.C. Fields

Modern software is much more bloated and resource intensive than the software on that Mac IIci. Do you think modern software has greater utility in keeping with its increased resource requirements?

This reminds me of the excellent Sci-Fi short story Better Living Through Algorithms .

Clay tablets sound like just the thing for an analog bag.

Repeating the original statement because it has two parts that go together and don't make sense separately:

The salient point is the requirement to redo the election with all new candidates if "none of the above" achieves plurality. The goal is to force the parties to run candidates that actually appeal to ordinary people.

The salient point is the requirement to redo the election with all new candidates if "none of the above" achieves plurality. The goal is to force the parties to run candidates that actually appeal to ordinary people.

AI: It's a dangerous way of not thinking.