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."

 

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

Yes, vapor, but just like Musk's incessant claims of building a society on Mars is only years away, it doesn't matter, people believe what they want to believe, facts matter less and less as the years go by, it's becoming a defining characteristic of the 21st century, a kind of unenlightenment so to speak.

People often wonder how ancient cultures could believe the world was situated on the back of a turtle or the universe hatched from a giant egg. Well it's not hard to see modern man believing all sorts of ridiculous things, we're not so advanced after all, just look at 2020.

 

IBM scientists claim they've achieved 'quantum advantage' — and they've dared others to prove them wrong


​

In a purported major milestone for quantum computing, the experiments show how these machines could perform useful computational tasks, such as computing chemical reactions, within minutes. By comparison, a supercomputer would take years.

 

IBM scientists claim they've achieved 'quantum advantage' — and they've dared others to prove them wrong
View attachment 370017
​

Well then I have a simple challenge for them: do one calculation that immediately benefits mankind, immediately.

 

Well then I have a simple challenge for them: do one calculation that immediately benefits mankind, immediately.

The definitive challenge would be to perform integer factorization rapidly and thus break numerous heavily used encryption schemes. Perhaps even computing the private keys from known public Bitcoin public keys...

 

The definitive challenge would be to perform integer factorization rapidly and thus break numerous heavily used encryption schemes. Perhaps even computing the private keys from known public Bitcoin public keys...

I suspect you have just nailed the most likely application if quantum computing is realized.

 

Asymmetric key (trap door functions) exchange is in real danger. AES-256 (symmetric encryption is quantum-resistant and secure) is still solid, the best QM can do with it is half the key size and AES-128 remains computationally infeasible to crack.

 

The definitive challenge would be to perform integer factorization rapidly and thus break numerous heavily used encryption schemes. Perhaps even computing the private keys from known public Bitcoin public keys...

I suspect you have just nailed the most likely application if quantum computing is realized.

Yes and no.

The problems is that unlike classical computers, quantum computers don't scale the same way. Give me any problem that can be done with a 64-bit processor and I can do it with a 4-bit processor, it's just going to take a lot longer. But I can do it. In the quantum world, the problem being solved dictates the number of logical qubits required and any fewer than that can't solve the problem, no matter how long they are given. And a logical qubit requires lots and lots of physical qubits in order to perform the necessary error correction. In very rough terms, to break an RSA key you need something like two to four times as many logical qubits as the key length and each logical qubit can require hundreds or thousands of physical qubits. So breaking an RSA-1024 key might require a quantum computer with millions of physical qubits while breaking a 4096-bit key might require hundreds of millions. Today's computers have hundreds to a few thousand physical qubits. Because the approaches to error correction are very different, the ratio of logical to physical qubit varies greatly, but the current record is 96 logical qubits. But there are lots of other hurdles. Demonstrating that a particular number of logical qubits has been achieved is not the same as having a useful computer that can sustain operations.

It's probably going to be quite awhile before machines are around with the thousands of logical qubits needed to challenge meaningful RSA keys or DHM key exchange. But there are other problems in fields like optimization and chemical/biochemical simulation that can be tackled once sustainable computers with around 100 logical qubits are available, and we are very close to that and are expected to reach it in another year. Longer projections are to hit the 1000 logical qubit realm before 2030.

Cryptography will likely be one of the last applications to see quantum computers applied to successfully, but that's not really surprising since cryptographic algorithms are intentionally designed to be extremely hard to reverse. There are many other problems in lots of fields where being able to efficiently simulate quantum effects, which quantum computers are particularly well suited for, is central to making major progress and breakthroughs. Those are where we will see the first examples of practical quantum advantage and we will likely see those applications routinely benefiting from the use of quantum computing well before crypto applications are here, but that day is coming and probably sooner than we might imagine, so we do need to be moving to quantum-resistant public-key systems with some urgency, as the transition will take time and not be pain-free.

EDIT: Fix typos.

 

The definitive challenge would be to perform integer factorization rapidly and thus break numerous heavily used encryption schemes. Perhaps even computing the private keys from known public Bitcoin public keys...

Wouldn't you think that it would be better to come up with a security algorithm that is not crackable for the estimated entire age of the universe (in all probability of course). That would benefit MOST of mankind, with the only exception the hackers

You touched on a very interesting branch of this topic.

 

Wouldn't you think that it would be better to come up with a security algorithm that is not crackable for the estimated entire age of the universe (in all probability of course). That would benefit MOST of mankind, with the only exception the hackers

You touched on a very interesting branch of this topic.

Frankly no. Nothing man does can save mankind, our world and so called civilization is dying. For example we have the computational power today that demonstrates the destructive effect of climate change, yet those we allow to lead us deny it is real and so it is escalating, nothing could be more absurd.

So stop thinking technology can save us, it cannot, fools are in control and no technology can fix that.

 

Nothing man does can save mankind...

Have you considered human sacrifice?

Tribalists throughout history have found this a safe and effective method for satiating the angry gods.

I just wish that, when it comes to it, they would start with themselves.

 

Wouldn't you think that it would be better to come up with a security algorithm that is not crackable for the estimated entire age of the universe (in all probability of course). That would benefit MOST of mankind, with the only exception the hackers

You touched on a very interesting branch of this topic.

We already have those. Most current cryptographic algorithms satisfy that objective for non-quantum computers and many do so for quantum computers as well. There are a only handful of algorithms that are susceptible to being completely broken if quantum computing gets enough logical qubits. Unfortunately, that includes any that are based on prime factorization, which includes RSA and DHM key exchange algorithms, that are currently the backbone of public-key infrastructure. But we already have alternatives for public-key cryptography that are quantum resistant and are beginning to shift over to them.

 

Frankly no. Nothing man does can save mankind, our world and so called civilization is dying. For example we have the computational power today that demonstrates the destructive effect of climate change, yet those we allow to lead us deny it is real and so it is escalating, nothing could be more absurd.

So stop thinking technology can save us, it cannot, fools are in control and no technology can fix that.

That's a very bleak assessment, F ... and yes, I get where you're coming from. History has shown again and again that human nature is selfish and egotistical. And when one extrapolates that sort of evil, the inevitable and logical result is that only one human will remain in the end.
It does sound very absurd, though ... plausible, perhaps, but absurd.

I'm more of an optimistic. When one looks at reality, horrible as it is sometimes, one also has to admit that we've made enormous positive strides into helping one another regardless of our differences. For instance, 3,000 years ago it would've been unthinkable having a government concerned with its citizens retirement at old age, for instance. And it would come to only care about the health of the general population if a plague of sorts interfered with the process of collecting taxes.

Pay me taxes and in exchange I won't beat the crap out of you ... that was the Social Contract back then. Governments were essentially parasites. Nowadays it is very different. So yeah, I honestly think that if we keep at it, eventually our species will come around and become more considerate not just toward ourselves but to our Planet and other species as well.

You're right about one thing, though. Technology will not save us. Technology is only a tool. Only we can save ourselves.

 

Have you considered human sacrifice?

Tribalists throughout history have found this a safe and effective method for satiating the angry gods.

I just wish that, when it comes to it, they would start with themselves.

No, I prefer rationalism, science (rather than science denial), but you go right ahead.

 

That's a very bleak assessment, F ... and yes, I get where you're coming from. History has shown again and again that human nature is selfish and egotistical. And when one extrapolates that sort of evil, the inevitable and logical result is that only one human will remain in the end.
It does sound very absurd, though ... plausible, perhaps, but absurd.

I'm more of an optimistic. When one looks at reality, horrible as it is sometimes, one also has to admit that we've made enormous positive strides into helping one another regardless of our differences. For instance, 3,000 years ago it would've been unthinkable having a government concerned with its citizens retirement at old age, for instance. And it would come to only care about the health of the general population if a plague of sorts interfered with the process of collecting taxes.

Pay me taxes and in exchange I won't beat the crap out of you ... that was the Social Contract back then. Governments were essentially parasites. Nowadays it is very different. So yeah, I honestly think that if we keep at it, eventually our species will come around and become more considerate not just toward ourselves but to our Planet and other species as well.

You're right about one thing, though. Technology will not save us. Technology is only a tool. Only we can save ourselves.

There is no "we can" there is only power and weakness, the powerful strive to maintain and increase their power, the weak are compelled to serve the interests of power.

The weak are constantly reassured by the powerful, how good life is, so they rarely challenge power, as soon as one seriously challenges power, that power becomes vicious.

Never in the history of human civilization have the powerful had as much capacity to destroy the world as they have today.

You can be optimistic but you are powerless to confront power, tell me what do you think "we" can do?

Population is rising, pollution is rising, democracy is crumbling, food and water security is declining, irrationality, nationalism is rising, the world is a powder keg...

 

Nothing man does can save mankind, our world and so called civilization is dying.

I prefer rationalism.

Yes, I can see that.

 

Yes, I can see that.

Make sure you stock up on bleach and hypodermics Joe, you never know when the next pandemic might arrive, oh and watch out for the windmills, truly evil beasts.

 

Make sure you stock up on bleach and hypodermics Joe, you never know when the next pandemic might arrive, oh and watch out for the windmills, truly evil beasts.

Geezus. What grade are you in?