This reads like the headline to an Onion article. The actual article would be banal quotes by researchers interspersed with descriptions of restless and over-caffeinated behaviors of the researchers. Maybe a quote or two from a Starbucks PR head or lobbyist to drive it home.

Maybe just don't addict yourself to a strong stimulant who's effects diminish with chronic use until you're dependent on large doses of it daily to maintain an otherwise normal baseline? That's also an option.

Fun fact! It's made by the same company! Realdoll was bought up by a crypto company and this is their idea of a "pivot to AI".

I really hope ihs was a joke about how "flammable" and "inflammable" are synonyms. Though, it would be funnier if it wasn't.

String theory requires supersymetry. Supersymetry requires sparticles (supersymetric particle pairs to the conventional particle flavors). The lightest sparticles should have been seen by the LHC. They weren't. Therefore, there is no supersymetry. Therefore there is no string theory.

You say that like a market can't be entirely irrational for a prolonged period of time. Those stocks aren't up because the fundamentals of those companies are good and they have surging revenue and profit. Those stocks are up because of wild speculation from non-experts like you.

Quantum computers haven't factored primes larger than 29. Not 29-digits. The number 29.

You can bet on basically anything on Kalshi. It's really quite terrible. A definite sign of a collapsing civilization.

Why do so many people seem to confuse the terms "commercial" with "retail"? If a system is large and complex and expensive and thus limited to enterprise level assets, it's still a commercial product! Why do people keep bringing up personal computers? I never said anything about having one sitting on your desk.

Prime numbers of sufficient length to be used for modern asymetric encryption algorithms.

You can buy a quantum computer with a dozen qubits and no algorithms that can outperform conventional computers. There are a few university labs that were interested in buying them, and fewer private labs. Those companies were just black holes for VC money looking for moonshot returns because interest raates were so low. They don't do anything! They just let executives say they have a quantum computer when they do another funding round!

It's already been a quarter century. How much longer do you want to give it? Stimulated emmisions were demonstrated in the 60s. By the late 80s there were already consumer uses for the technology.

The decoherence problem of qubits is fatal at lengths needed to factor primes of the size currently used for encryption. Noise and decoherence increase eponentially with the number of qubits. Which is my point. There's currently no reason to think you can make a quantum computer that can meaningfully outperform a classical computer. It's like nuclear fusion or, more specifically in this case, quantum encryption. While the theory is straight forward enough, making a practical system is functionally impossible.

Even before ENIAC, computers were doing arithmetic faster and with higher fidelity than human computers. While the best human computers could outperform early computers, they mostly worked on highly critical calculations. Everyone saw the utility of electronic computers for bulk calculations.

Doing simple arithmetic quickly and with high fidelity was instantly useful and valuable. There were many other early use cases for digital electronic computers that weren't valuable. You don't know about them because, since they couldn't turn a profit, they don't exist right now. You should read up on early Soviet computers and Soviet cybernetic theory to get a sense of other things that were possible, though ultimately not profitable.

My issue with quantum computing is that there's no real evidence it can even do the things it's been promised to do. Did you know there aren't even any proposed quantum algorithms that could factor large primes faster than conventional computers? Nevermind the number of qubits you would need to accomplish them. There's no theoretical framework for how they could even do that. It's entirely hypothetical at this point. To create an algorithm that can reliably output useful results while maintaining the coherence of the quantum states has proven to be significantly harder in practice than earlier hypothesized.

Much like quantum encryption, it turns out creating the system in theory is much different than making a practical system. It's a perfect example of a spherical cow problem, also called an AM/FM problem. While your theory of how to increase milk productioni works for spherical cows in a vacuum, it doesn't work with real cows. It's the difference between Actual Machines and Fucking Magic.

"No quantum algorithm will be proven (in the meaning of mathematics technical argot) to factor large primes significantly faster (greater than 30% improvement in average processing time) than conventional algorithms by the year 2035."

Is that precise enough for you?