The difference is that 10 years ago you needed billions of stable qubits, now you need 10k stable qubits.

And 10 years ago you had one or two stable qubits in the lab, now you have thousands.

Helt fair, det er også sådan det siges jo. Og jeg tror måske også det efterhånden er blevet sådan man skriver det :)

Det er sjovt, originalt havde “stable” bydeformen “stabl”, som selvfølgelig ser skaber ud. Er det ændret i ordbogen siden?

Exactly. And saying this meme is counter-propaganda is pointless, since it itself is propaganda.

Absolutely, that’s my point.

Hmm, maybe I misunderstood you.

If all cultural artifacts serve a propaganda purpose, but this post is not propaganda, does that mean that this post is not a cultural artifact?

Absolutely - I did not mean to imply that this is evil propaganda.

Indeed - Riverside’s claim that this is not propaganda is therefore false.

Fair, though I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. I’m no fan of the US, but what do you think is the biggest issue plaguing China right now from a humanist perspective?

This may counter propaganda, but is also clearly propaganda itself.

Used to go to school with one of these guys, can’t believe this shit

Guerilla marketing?

I am! Tell me who it is, and I’ll kick their butts.

QC has well-founded expected applications within chemistry, factorisation and optimization. Anything else is hyperbole at this point.

No. But I know true love, so I’d say you’re wrong.

No serious quantum computer scientist or industry person would claim QC “solves everything”. Who is “they”?

I don’t think they approve of billionaire run western corporate media either.

To be fair, it’s way better than 50/50, but of course no guarantees still.

The legal framework for Greenland to declare independence has been in place for decades.

They’re currently a self-ruling territory that is part of the Danish realm by choice. Not saying that forgives old colonialist crimes, but it hasn’t been a Danish colony for a while now.

Why does area get to be especially fun and definite while length, its one-dimension-away sibling doesn’t?

Excellent question, and as you yourself allude to, it’s a question of bounds. If you can establish and upper and lower bound on a quantity and make them approach eachother, you can measure it.

On a finite 2d surface you can make absolute lower and upper bounds on any area - lower is zero, upper is the full surface. All areas are measurable. But on the same surface you can make a line infinitely squiggly and detailed, essentially drawing a fractal. So the upper bound on the length of a line is infinite. Which means not all lines have a measurable length. And that comparing two line lengths might become the same problem as comparing to infinities of the same type, which is not well defined.

This extends naturally to higher dimensions - in a finite 3d space, volumes must be finite, but both lines and areas can be fractally complex and infinite. And so on.