• alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    It can be useful if they build enough of these that they can run programs that regular computers can’t run at this scale, in less than an hour.

    Quantum computers aren’t a replacement for regular computers because they’re much slower and can’t do normal calculations, but they can do the type of problem where you have to guess-and-check too many answers to be feasible with regular computers in many fewer steps.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      57
      ·
      11 days ago

      I took a random wild guess, and found that if they quit blowing billions of dollars on over-complicated technology, they could do a lot more to take care of real world problems, like food, clothes and shelter for the homeless.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        You think that’s wasteful? Wait until you hear about the military or prisons.

      • RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 days ago

        But… you know even if they didn’t use the money for this, they wouldn’t use it for those things, right? It’s Google…

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 days ago

        By simulating molecules, quantum computers have a huge promise of creating new medicines that are more effective, have fewer side effects, and are more likely to get through FDA trials on the first try.

        Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

      • SecretSauces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 days ago

        So what you’re saying is we should never make any scientific advancement until we make the world a paradise?

        You know what would be at more effective, and just as realistic? Setting a limit that no one person or entity should have more than a half a billion dollars. The rest goes to charity to take care of all the problems we have now.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 days ago

          I totally get you there, yes no one person should have over half a billion dollars while so many others plus the environment are suffering.

          As far as scientific advancement, I think humanity is already reaching the peak of that mountain. Sure there’s still more to be discovered, but at what cost?

          How much does it cost in research and design, manufacturing and programming a quantum computer? I dunno what their finances look like, but if I had to spot a wild guess, that already sounds like over half a billion dollars…

      • bunchberry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Interesting you get downvoted for this when I mocked someone for saying the opposite who claimed that $0.5m was some enormous amount of money we shouldn’t be wasting, and I simply pointed out that we waste literally billions around the world on endless wars killing random people for now reason, so it is silly to come after small bean quantum computing if budgeting is your actual concern. People seemed to really hate me for saying that, or maybe it was because they just actually like wasting moneys on bombs to drop on children and so they want to cut everything but that.