Message from @Samaritan™

Discord ID: 626409189220024320


2019-09-25 13:25:02 UTC  

Watch with sound

2019-09-25 13:25:03 UTC  

IBM Q has them

2019-09-25 13:25:11 UTC  

Google has them too

2019-09-25 13:25:14 UTC  

Google has them

2019-09-25 13:25:15 UTC  

Ye communAIsm

2019-09-25 13:25:16 UTC  

The issue is

2019-09-25 13:25:25 UTC  

They’re like the same power as a toaster

2019-09-25 13:25:25 UTC  

IBM and Google have proof of concept quantum computers

2019-09-25 13:25:31 UTC  

People have quantum computers already @Lucienne d'Anwyl

2019-09-25 13:25:31 UTC  

Silly

2019-09-25 13:25:42 UTC  

what are they defining as a quantum computer lul

2019-09-25 13:25:53 UTC  

theyre just ordinary computers that go fast

2019-09-25 13:26:03 UTC  

So Google claimed it made one that performs "a calculation ttatd take normal comps millennia"

2019-09-25 13:26:09 UTC  

A computer that has non-distinctive binary code recognition

2019-09-25 13:26:12 UTC  

But they kinda retracted the claim

2019-09-25 13:26:12 UTC  

The point at which we can actually make calculations with them that are useful is probably close

2019-09-25 13:26:15 UTC  

Even though it runs using the principles that makes the computer a quantum computer?

2019-09-25 13:26:17 UTC  

<:WhatThe:543598290936004638>

2019-09-25 13:26:27 UTC  

A computer, the calculations done by which are derived from quantum fluctuations as opposed to electrical binary

2019-09-25 13:26:28 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/613767975614283832/626409185516453898/Snip.PNG

2019-09-25 13:26:31 UTC  

you mean its probably far away as fuck

2019-09-25 13:26:37 UTC  

Uses Qubits but ain’t quantum

2019-09-25 13:26:38 UTC  

Yes Sam, that

2019-09-25 13:26:44 UTC  

It’s close Luci

2019-09-25 13:26:46 UTC  

You can't just have a 'fast computer' and call it a quantum computer

2019-09-25 13:26:51 UTC  

Not like tomorrow close but

2019-09-25 13:26:54 UTC  

They're fundamentally two different things

2019-09-25 13:26:57 UTC  

unless google is lying

2019-09-25 13:27:00 UTC  

like they always do

2019-09-25 13:27:00 UTC  

Next 10-20 years close

2019-09-25 13:27:01 UTC  

lol

2019-09-25 13:27:03 UTC  

Which runs on different principles

2019-09-25 13:27:09 UTC  

Of course they are

2019-09-25 13:27:10 UTC  

IBM isn’t lying

2019-09-25 13:27:11 UTC  

@Samaritan™ okay those numbers are literally just Google doing some math in excel

2019-09-25 13:27:13 UTC  

But in which direction

2019-09-25 13:27:18 UTC  

@lunemarie like how fusion is only 20 years away?

2019-09-25 13:27:20 UTC  

xD

2019-09-25 13:27:21 UTC  

Maybe

2019-09-25 13:27:23 UTC  

Because you can use IBMs