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.
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.
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.
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?
With quantum computing if you ignore it you are simultaneously not ignoring it?
I don’t think so, but yes.
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.
Many people in lemmy is highly primitivist and tech conservatives. Meaning that they don’t actually want any technological progress.
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.