Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Aren't there really basic things that are wrong with Wadhwa's article? For instance, "quantum supremacy" doesn't mean "finally building a quantum computer that is more powerful than any existing supercomputer". For that matter, isn't it really misleading to suggest that a "50 qubit" IBM prototype would even be of the same practical utility as existing computers of any sort, from supercomputers to iWatches?

The cryptographic content of the article gets even worse from there.

I don't think it's "petty" to call out someone as high-profile as Vivek Wadhwa for apparently taking to the pages of the Washington Post to write about a topic he has no conversance with at all.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact