Given how much investment is pouring into quantum computing, it appears that this theory is wholly unconvincing.
Discussion
tbf investment pouring into quantum computing isn't wholly convincing either
This is shitcoiner logic.
That's the exact point I made in my repost. Nic's 10 arguments are all arguments from consensus. Fiat thinking.
Use your big boy words; "shitcoiner logic" has no meaning since everyone is a shitcoiner.
nostr:npub1hqaz3dlyuhfqhktqchawke39l92jj9nt30dsgh2zvd9z7dv3j3gqpkt56s agrees.
You are one of the most evil shitcoiners and a disgusting manipulator, Slopp.
Everybody thinks so, ergo it must be true?
No, but price is the strongest signal in markets and if your argument was convincing to the markets then quantum companies would be valued far closer to zero.
do you think that holds true with broken money? also blockchain hype, dot-com bubble and other examples showed that malinvestment exists
i am not picking sides, just feel your arguments also don't convince
Let me simplify it for you: a quantum computer can't scale because thermodynamics takes over at scale. That's not a problem you can engineer your way out of.
QC can't scale because thermodynamics takes over at scale.
At scale the cat is alive, or it is dead.
“Given how much investment is pouring into QC” reads just like…
“All the ‘smart people in clown/fiat world’ are doing it, so they must be right” 🤦♂️
I remember hearing the same lazy “logic” in the ‘eyeballs/clicks per share’ days of 1999-2001.
The funny thing is that if you just sample a half dozen theoretical physicists, you quickly learn what a Silicon Valley/Wall Street scam QC is! 🤪🔫
Measuring the utility or validity of something by the amount of money wasted on it is a poor metric.
Nope, money is one of the strongest possible signals. You claiming that it's "wasted" is subjective. The money being put at risk is an objective signal, one could argue that investment is a form of prediction market.
I claim it has been wasted because, objectively, zero utility has been produced.
I agree that money can be a useful signal, but it's far from infallible. The vast majority of all VC investments fail generate a postive ROI. Therefore, VC investment != validation.
In regards to QC, the investment is a signal for desire/hope and gullability, not validiation of the research or technology.
I would venture to guess that none of the people making the financial allocations into QC understand it.