This doesn't bother me too much. Just because something is extraordinarily hard today does not mean that it will always be that way -- the history of technology is replete with examples. Unless something is hard because it is right up against what the laws of physics permit, you simply can't discount the refinements and breakthroughs that lots and lots of time, effort, and money will produce.

Hi,

I never do that, just the opposite. I believe at least mostly that anything is possible given enough time. Maybe not anything anything, but because we don't yet know what is coming tomorrow, we can't possibly predict what will come the day after tomorrow.

My comment was more about the repetition of what we have been reading about some of the new technology. It's a glorified future, but written as maybe go, maybe no-go, which we already know about everything that is still in development. In a sense, we won't know until "the day after tomorrow" so when I read "this may be coming soon" it really doesn't tell me anything at all.
"I may be getting new shoes tomorrow." Am I getting new shoes or not? Still nobody can tell from that statement they can only know that I am thinking about getting new shoes. That might be interesting, but then if I keep repeating it making it sound different each time, it does not add to the certainty one way or the other. "It's possible I am getting new shoes tomorrow", "There is a chance I will get new shoes tomorrow", "There is a good chance I will get new shoes tomorrow", none of that helps clarify anything it just talks the talk with the same information just repeated in a slightly different way.
It's probably because different authors just feel like writing about it even though there is nothing definite yet.

 

Majorana 2: Electric Boogaloo

https://www.theregister.com/researc...ot-compute-due-to-basic-python-errors/5260489

Boffin claims Microsoft's supposed quantum leap does not compute due to 'basic Python errors'
Nature paper argues researchers cherry-picked data. Redmond insists its work is sound

The announcement of Majorana 2 has not changed Legg's assessment of Microsoft's work.

"Majorana 2 is not available to customers and it is not proven to even be a single qubit," Legg said. "Their preprint, which should not really be given any credence given that it is based on a single device, does not even claim an X-measurement (which they did eventually for Majorana 1 last year, but that preprint has also not yet been published). Essentially, their claim of '1,000 times more reliable' refers to the lifetime of a classical bit (the parity of the state). There is no evidence this is a qubit and can hold a superposition. The classical bits in my computer have very long lifetimes (years!), but it does not make them good qubits."

"For Majorana 2, one has to ask why they do not report the X-measurement, since Microsoft were obviously aware it was so important for their claims last year. I think it's very reasonable to assume that they did attempt the same supposed X-measurement with their Majorana 2 device and it didn't work out. That's not surprising because, based on everything I have seen, it all looks like disorder physics and they have not shown any kind of control over even a single qubit."