It has to do with analogism of (photon) vs digitalism, and the extra duration allows scattered particles (using something like a beam splitter) and unknown materials to keep its charge.. it's been a struggle having a northbridge and how to get those analogue-digital bits into them from this material (I think so although they haven't release the white specifications yet and probably won't any time soon.) Ultimately quantum's promises about calculations isn't so true (not only crypto-analysis relevant supposedly but its different structure/systems) but its method to work on a problem like cutting a log to execute a job instead of smashing pipelines, and re-arranging the invariance of the system that way.. although this is different than digital thus far because analogism helps do a lot of tasks that have immediacy to be log n log growth, et cetera.

It isn't much different than storing a password using a hash generator, in any case, it does get interesting in the future when we're faced with entropy systems and one breach of security can cause very unpredictable behavior from the implementation given (casinos for example use self deterministic "automata" and later data to ensure the system is truly entropic rather than the avalanche effects stored password contain.) although authenticity on a network might always need a mnemonic to verify as idiomatic digital computing can be with passphrases and their two-auth structural failures can retrospectively be seen as weak typing... bioinformatics and encrypted sensors seem accessible enough to change cryptography in the future.

UTC (Greenwich time that calculates determinates from the earth's in-variants, so inner-mantle core that derives molten matter to adjust the atmospheric pressures... in fact many (unfortunate) "external" factors determine the limitation of our earth's time including some unbeknownst co-variables: the matter which orbits changes our very planet's ability to have calculative momentum besides a tiny and minuscule meter of time that displaces the rest of the Earth's development (whether in outer space to de-orbit energies that exist from the surface of Earth or the grand scheme of civilization that only learns from mechanical and entropic fall-out, i,e the fact bodies of any kind are somehow counterions co-existing....) none of which benefit the life on our own planet because there isn't absolute coordinate of spatio-temporality to make clock-time or otherwise calendric stamps possible. there is only permanence of Time and the Eternity to make intension and matter possible, thus Mayan civilization and perhaps some others (Aztec and pre sanskrit people knew how to make time slow for everyone which is unparalleled to "Theory of Relativity" because time is only to be stopped entirely, i.e "untimely."

AI was initially a theoretical absurdity (Kurzweil's "singularity concept" where machines take over the earth and produce more mind(?) independent machines to create new bodies of intelligence.) AI won't work with computers that calculate determinates or otherwise demand intelligence akin to humans. Along with the fact AI has only naturalized the spectre of human intelligence (certainly barometer is irrelevant when we don't have (de)limitations to begin with eventually!), AI is not made for "automating" tasks or en-route scheduling, that is dummy work and perhaps the fall out (read: not extinction) of human life on the planet because it makes capitalism and beyond an actual joke of existence. Also the fact we need super computers to gain better solutions and surpassed abilities without the actual fact of matter: how do I play chess/go with a computer to generate interesting other worlds? AI doesn't precipitate human interaction ultimately if it were to be "intelligent" because there are precepts that are outside the barometer of course, perhaps more relevant to consider the fact computers can co-exist without us doing anything to it for more permanent universes to become new speciations and techne (civilization growth) developments. Deleuze's "abstract machine" is more pertinent to the matter of computer-less machines - the formation of a doggone egg in virtualities and spatials is more relevant to know we can do it without human limitations or interactive abilities along with no longer having computers (adding machines which only count): to foresee the future is absurd at that tincture of existence when computers are only extinction for human life. generating actualized matter to give and offer machines which indeterminately disconnect and re-arrange appendages to only generate more possibilities of matter is our only hope in "AI". I suggest Reza Negarestani's recent book "Intelligence and Spirit", a great philosophy book based on Hegelian dialectics and computer intelligence that proves outside-in and diagrammatic knowledge concepts (movements in lines rather than the usual algebra-geometry of movement in points and completed lines) to learn more about the topic of artificial intelligence.

Ideally computing would have neither input/output, perhaps more of a proliferation of posterior analysis that transforms various inlets and facets of cross-products into something besides an internal/external representation for a computer to calculate and crunch on, one-two values whether parameterized or later on parametrics to double bind them (aka Facebook data centers or any data center for that matter) fails because it doesn't produce new ways to make computing viable on life and vitality. it only blurs the data into unlivable life. in terms of usability we do not have any way to make computers simpler for a larger metric to make vantage points persist for something besides a private fliation and cancelling of desires when we use anything like a smartphone or digital computer. orgiastic bodies is the result of the onset of technology acceleration and over-growth when we make them. whether we use visual or sense-datum on the body is the acuity of analogue/digitalism.... of course incorporeality is a cheap-sake of the true idea of computers today which was more akin to an abacus in the early centuries of oriental history. we cannot make screens inside-out because it goes the other way out as a reverse imaginary split that leaves our energies into the earth stratum as a kind of death hault. (certainly Turing computers never have happened and may not in the future besides a theoretical reflex.) We see computers today destroy the phallic-oneness of human life (i.e how we add over and over in our life to make sense of what we do every time.) so, diacritics do not make computers have and offer worlds because of their rapid reduction of senses when used with internal representations (more difficult than the typical Unicode flat charset issues we're faced with now.) (say, a keyboard which transmutes various signals into a mega structure inlet.. and demodulates bodies. aka an elevator button which makes the shafts more contingent on matters of new and exciting life in terms of our senses... or the fact we can use computers that do everything for us but we only *see* the re-solvency as a particular grapheme or ornate detail like in the Middle Ages.) computers are too complicated (read: not complex) because they cannot re-produce human life and other ways to do things that haven't happened or otherwise the fact computers only make dead matter more alive. a digital device is to be made for mnemonics rather than strict (re)copies of data every time.

games still have levels for the same reason music still has albums. it's a decent presentation for ideas/stories, and you can easily adapt it in a linear fashion (i.e. beginning, middle, end)