>>13227288>Is this true?no
>>has been researched for decades, yet has no practical applicationsthere are numerous applications to material science, quantum chemistry, etc.
>>no proof that it can solve any problems conventional computing can't solveThis is untrue. As far as "computability," classical and quantum can solve the same sets of problems. But various important problems are intractable on a classical computer while being efficient on a quantum computer. So you go from taking longer than your lifespan to compute a problem to being able to do it between hours or days.
>>they still fail to construct double digit numbers of quantum bitsalso untrue. What's more accurate to say is that error corrected, high-fidelity qubits with long times before decoherence are what we're after, and so far these are all open problems.
>>consumes a shitload of resourcesthis is true.
Quantum computing is definitely not a meme, especially when literally every big name in quantum computing states
>it's long term research for payoff decades from now>we have a lot of immediate gains now in both theoretical and experimental science but aren't selling a full QTM implementation like it exists>things are exciting but we're at most optimistic, not promising the skyand then journos hear this and think the world is crashing down.
You just KNOW someone is gonna come into this thread with the stupid Scott Locklin blogpost that has been slapped numerous times by people who know what they're talking about. If you want any respectable opinions against quantum computing, read Gil Kalai's papers and concerns on the topic.
