• 2 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 12th, 2023

help-circle








  • Good points, I’m reevaluating my perspective on quantum computing.

    From the article you posted, it says that “certain chemistry, quantum materials, and materials science applications” are suitable for quantum computing but that “accelerating incompressible computational fluid dynamics” aren’t suitable with current understanding of how the algorithms could work.

    My takeaway as someone with a couple years of CS education from years ago is that the qcomputers are good at gradient descent/simulated annealing or something like that but that advantage disappears with more complex problems. Also that we’ll need a few more orders of magnitude qubits to make the output “interesting.” Still though, helpful to see that something worthwhile is stirring under all that research , I appreciate the insight!



  • Okay, I was being somewhat flippant. I don’t discount there seems to be progress in some areas but slow and in low-visibility ways. I could even believe much more powerful quantum computers exist in state facilities around the world. Have they been shown to be useful though or there some bottleneck that prevents them from outcompeting digital computers?

    An additional concern of mine is what they are useful for is in rapidly breaking vital digital algorithms like elliptical curve cryptography, and can’t be allowed in public hands for that reason. Someone elsewhere said there were computers with 1100 qubits, why is it taking so long to exploit these machines to do useful work? Or am I mistaken and there is evidence, I would love to see it.

    Would a savvy investor put their money in quantum computing now, was the Wright Company a good buy when it first started? This actually has me on a deep dive about historical stock market graphs…


  • From your article,

    What everyone should know, however, is that quantum computing is not yet a practical reality. No company has developed a device that can beat classical supercomputers at anything more than obscure research problems that have no real use.

    Until quantum computing has its Alan Turing moment it will remain a curiosity. The power of qubits needs to be yoked as a beast of burden for computation and actual useful problem solving the way that digital computing was with the Turing machine. It’s not a certainty that this will ever happen.

    Sometimes I think that believers in quantum computing’s superiority to digital computing are as silly as those who think we’ve almost proven P=NP. But who knows, both might be valid.


  • If votes became truly public, what would stop a malicious user from automating crawling the fediverse to get a list of every up and down vote a targeted user has ever made? Admins can currently do this, I assume given enough time and intent? Yuck.

    I really hope a solution is found and if Lemmy goes the way of truly public votes, it would probably turn this into a nonparticipatory medium for me, I’d still read posts but not vote or comment.

    Edit: also, most casual Lemmy users aren’t aware of public votes and would be upset that it already works this way, and only particularly invested or curious users are even reading this thread.










  • There’s at least some parts of the lemmy community where those views are acceptable even if generally they’re frowned upon in the wider community. Maybe !debate@hilariouschaos.com ? The hilariouschaos instance seems relatively err… libertarian in their approach to free speech but still is widely federated to other instances. Not speaking from experience as I’m not subscribed to any of their communities but that was the impression I got.

    Regardless of our current differences of opinion on transgender folks and (most kinds of) immigration, and the differences between you and the lemmy community at large I’d like to think it’s a big enough place that you’ll be able to find room here for respectful discussion, or start a community of your own on an instance where it can happen.