Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 2024-09-19 11:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:44:24 +0300, Niklas Holsti wrote:
 

On 2024-09-19 2:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:09:53 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote:
>

He mentioned that several physics breakthroughs
are needed for quantum computing to become useful.

>
The biggest one would be getting around the fundamental problem that
you can’t get something for nothing.

>
Stupid argument. Look at the effort and tech it takes to make quantum
computers... that is not "nothing".

 Is there some ongoing “Nature’s Rentware” involved?

I have no idea what you mean by that.

The promise of an exponential increase in computing power for a linear
increase in the number of processing elements sounds very much like
“something for nothing” under another name, wouldn’t you say?

>
No, it is exploiting the very non-intuitive nature of quantum
entanglement to create an exponential number of collective states of a
linear number of elements.

 That’s called the “many worlds interpretation” of quantum mechanics, and
it is philosophical mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

The /fact/ that quantum mechanics describes how the world works, entanglement and all, does not depend on the various attempts to "interpret" or understand its foundations.