I saw on a website dedicated to the Wright brothers, that but I was curious if there was something recognizable as a stock price listing as a publicly traded company. Larger investors like that might jump in before smaller investors started approaching it.
I posted a question about it on the largest stocks related communities I could find on Lemmy, maybe someone has expertise in that kind of thing. I’ll turn it over to AskLemmy if nobody shows up on the smaller forum.
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.
I was going to say, that looks disgusting!
I actually bought a bag of their beans after they publically distanced themselves from him. It wasn’t bad I guess, nothing spectacular. Although I’m giving up coffee slowly, probably wont buy another bag.
Just use up one of those gift cards you can use in any store and use that number for free trial signups. Then they can’t charge you when the trial period expires.
Butyric Acid
Président is in Walmart near me, beats that green and silver Irish butter imho
They’ve found hitting it with microwaves sinters it together pretty readily, so that would be the likely way they’d deal with it. Apparently also an effective way of making bricks out of it!
Hit him with a TENS machine then
'Round here we say “with accident” or “of accident”, thank you
Maybe you havent watched Letterkenny yet
I mean Brexit predated the Trump election by 5 months
In hot, humid climates the toilet bowl itself will have condensation that sweats down the outside in my experience. YMMV
Toilet paper hanging haphazardly over the front of the roll provides a convenient place for a 3 inch spider to hide between the roll and hanging strip. The patent illustration is clearly meant as a sick joke.
Bad design. Toilet paper not currently in use must be stored outside the bathroom so that it doesn’t become damp and musty from the humidity. As opposed to on the wet floor next to the dewy toilet. This is how you get a nasty fungal infection fyi
The solution is to poach the best superusers from Reddit and get them to put their content here where it will be more appreciated.
I’ve had a box in my cabinet for a couple weeks, gonna make it now thanks to you.
He’s got his fingers and thumb bent weirdly holding her pregnant belly. It looks big but then compare it to her near hand and it doesn’t seem that unlikely a size or shape to me. Shadows, light shining off his skin and image compression artifacts also may be adding to your confusion.
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!