2 hours ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
Ah, the mythical technology promissing absurdly performant computing yet has not done anything yet that would have been done better by existing supercomputers.
Oh but they say it has so much *potential*. Just no results.
Couple years ago, Google and the NASA claimed they calculated something on their "quantum computer" that would have taken 10 000 years on a conventional supercomputer... Problem is, IBM retorted that in reality it would have taken 2.5 days for a supercomputer to do so.
In other words, just like fusion reactor projects, it's only good at burning taxpayers' money.
> In other words, just like fusion reactor projects, it's only good at burning taxpayers' money.
In 10 more years, we'll be 10 years away from being 10 years closer to being 10 years out from having a fusion reactor that will be almost able to produce more energy than consumes.
Oh but they say it has so much *potential*. Just no results.
Couple years ago, Google and the NASA claimed they calculated something on their "quantum computer" that would have taken 10 000 years on a conventional supercomputer... Problem is, IBM retorted that in reality it would have taken 2.5 days for a supercomputer to do so.
In other words, just like fusion reactor projects, it's only good at burning taxpayers' money.
In 10 more years, we'll be 10 years away from being 10 years closer to being 10 years out from having a fusion reactor that will be almost able to produce more energy than consumes.