Still the Vance-Walz debate Oct 1 for some potential change for either candidacy. Voters think they know both VP picks but we won’t really know who we’re dealing with til they go head to head.
Still the Vance-Walz debate Oct 1 for some potential change for either candidacy. Voters think they know both VP picks but we won’t really know who we’re dealing with til they go head to head.
Polymarket is still showing ~50-49 Harris, less than a point. A tossup.
Although the polls have a 3-6 point spread favoring Kam nationwide depending on who you ask, it doesn’t seem insurmountable for the party of dirty tricks and ratfucking. Plan for a surprise Trump win unless Harris Walz starts pulling out all the stops and endorsing further left policies and putting on a harder charm offensive.
Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I know you’re talking about progressives in the Democratic primary but all of the remaining members of the Squad are still solidly progressive with no signs of switching teams. If there’s any evidence to the contrary I’d love to see it. Generally I feel like pseudoprogressive folks like Gabbard were behaving suspiciously from the start.
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!
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.
Bets measure opinion differently, and sometimes more accurately than phone or internet polling. Money talks.