• WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    But this is not like the past. Quantum computers is not an step in evolution, it is a jump, as if from no computers to computers. Of course it’s possible, but there is no basis or indication for it and so no reason to assume it. Why believe the less likely thing instead of the more likely?

      • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Which one? A super computer? Its just faster than a conventional computer by a factor that doesn’t matter. A quantum computer? The public field would be way closer to that if “the government” had one that would be useful.

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Obviously you are not aware a Quantum does not operate like a conventional computer. That’s fine. No reason to go further.

          • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh, but I am. That’s why I said what I said. Even if they have one, it will be severely lacking; indicated by where public research is at.

            • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You can’t even concede that Quantum computing is not convententual computing, why would your idea of research be valid?

                • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  The OP added conventional computing to their verbiage because they knew what they said was not true of Quantim computing. Thus my response.

                  Same as you adding the word public to research. Neither of us has any idea on the extent of research by Google, IBM and especially the NSA. Having worked in R&D before, I can tell you that not 50% is known to the public. The NSÀ, who run their own development and research-nothing at all. So, I consider your research argument faulty on its face…