Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote:

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.

Quantum mechanics is high IQ bullshit to make professors look important.

Next you are going to use the magic word Einstein and declare that makes
you win the argument.