• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Check it, yo. In the 90s all the articles and rumors around quantum computing were exactly the same. Exactly.

    Whenever I hear about some new quantum computing breakthrough, I spend about five seconds wondering if it’s real and then I feel very nostalgic because no, it never is.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sure, sure and it’s interesting stuff. But not anywhere near useful in the sense people mean when they talk about computers.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          They are as useful as the Large Hadron Collider, or the New Horizons probe.

          They are instruments of practical scientific research. They may have some return in useful technology or not, but science is always worth it.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Except quantum computers do indeed exist right now, and did not in the 90’s. Sadly, the hype and corporate interests still make it difficult to tell truth from nonsense.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, sure they exist. Much like the ENIAC. And it’s cool stuff to work with. It’s just not anywhere close to practical. And it never has been.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you had asked someone in the 90s if they could imagine half the shit that we have technologically they wouldn’t believe it. Just because something seems surreal, doesn’t mean it’s fake.

      Whether this new chip can do the things it claims we’ll see soon enough.

        • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          The ideas have always been there, it’s just a bottle neck on cheap electronics and people figuring out the foundation technology. I can’t think of to many tech advancements that have surprised me; that’s not too say they aren’t impressive, but just about anything we can imagine is possible.

          The main thing I don’t expect to see is useful and reliable brain/electronics interfaces. I think biology is too unique for an of the shelf product to be possible, which means it’s too hard to make a profitable product.

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Microsoft is slated to back up its claims and success in quantum computing next week at an American Physical Society (APS) meeting in California.”

    Well if they try to put on a show like Elon did with his dancing robots and what not we can be %100 sure it is a pyramid scheme.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Of course. Not a single quantum computer has done anything but test programs and quantum-specific benchmarks. Until a quantum computer finally does something a normal computer regularly does, but faster, we should simply ignore this area.

    EDIT: could the downvoters state a single occasion where a quantum computer outmatched a normal computer on a real problem. And with that I mean something more elaborate than winning naughts and crosses, or something like that.

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      until it’s better we should simply ignore this

      That seems like a strange comment to make. How will it get better if we don’t spend the time and effort to make it better?

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Many people in lemmy is highly primitivist and tech conservatives. Meaning that they don’t actually want any technological progress.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The idea is not to have three worthless announcements per week. They can get better all they want, and come back once they have tangible results.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That’s a different kind of quantum computer though (which i call the “real” kind). But that needs a while, especially with current risk-avoiding behavior of big corp. We are not even optical yet, not to talk about multitalents like graphene/silicene.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits

    To… produce a more random random numbers generator?