>>12540933I'm familiar with what it means and what Google claimed.
I'm just wondering if Google truly demonstrated it, since IBM claims they didn't actually demonstrate it. Of course IBM would say that, given they're competing to try to make one of the first practical quantum computers, but I don't know or understand the full dispute.
A few smart people I respect to some degree have a moderate suspicion that quantum computing will not ever actually be practical due to a failure in the understanding of the theory. Though more smart people seem to believe it's possible or already happened. I have no informed opinion and am completely neutral on the subject, personally.
>>12540788>You don't need quantum computer to do picklocking like you need to do on RSA.I believe you do. I don't think 4096-bit RSA can be practically cracked even in 100 years if you don't have a quantum computer. Why do you think otherwise?
>>12540808They have a cool steampunk sort of look, which is funny given they're actually one of the most far-future technologies in existence. I imagine later ones might look very different, though. And maybe they'll all be deep underground or something, to reduce the likelihood of environmental noise causing entanglement.
