IT'S HAPPENING

Bumping because you faggots aren't interested in the world of tomorrow

File: maxresdefault.jpg (79KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1440x1080px

This isn't consumerism shit or memes, of course you didn't get any reply from neo /g/

File: 1469182689137-g.jpg (46KB, 697x491px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 697x491px

>>55749202

>>55749202
jokes on them, they used non-free software

if they didn't already release an app for that i'm not interested

Singularity is retarded. Plz go Kurzweil

On a related note. Great, I wasted my Sunday updating all my accounts security and now google can just get into all of it anyway.

i don't understand any of this.

how does it benefit me, the consumer?

>>55749202
>simulation
It's not real quantum computer if don't use real quantum particle for computation

>>55749202
Put your penis back in your pants. Quantum computers are useless for most applications, including general AI. There are a few problems that quantum computers can solve in polynomial time that classical computers can't, and this is one of them.

Why is Google so based?

What if the accepted quantum interpretation is wrong?

File: fcapk.jpg (440KB, 699x2706px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 699x2706px

>>55749202
>the government hasn't used quantum computing for years
get your tin foil hats on

Okay

>>55749660
what if that 'polynomial time' is O(n^1000000)? is it still feasible?

>>55749406
OP here we only talk about things we can buy and no one here is actually a scholar
maybe /sci/

>>55749830
Well, several alternate interpretations have already been debunked (like hidden variables). Ultimately, if the interpretation is wrong, the fundamental mathematics is still (mostly) right, as shown by the ability to do correct predictions for experiments.

I mean, newton's laws aren't quite right, but you need to go relativistic to realise that. The main problem as far as I know really is to find something that can work well on the "edge" of quantum/nonquantum, ie how do quantum laws give rise to the laws we use for macroscopic systems.

>>55749917
it's far better than O(1000000^n)

File: russian-hacker.jpg (47KB, 999x550px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 999x550px

>>55749857
how do I into Marianas web?

>>55749406
People today are too busy trying to shill Windows 10.

>>55750133
>People today are too busy trying to shill Windows 10.
and Nvidia

>>55749857
>>>/x/

>>55749499
Take any everyday object you use that contains some sort of artificial chemical (pretty much everything in other words), so, the current way scientists derive the composition of these materials when they want to make something new is start with an educated guess based on previous knowledge of how this material reacts, and then experiment on it until they get a usable variant. We know how epoxy glue mixes on a molecular level since we know the properties of all the materials involved, but what we don't know how it mixes on an atomic level. This goes for everything.
It could well be that significant portions of the atomic structure of many elements do not contribute to the desired result, it's simply filler because we know of no other way to produce said material without it. If it were possible to simulate the interaction of atoms, we could could make an epoxy that for instance is twice as strong or dries several times faster by manipulating the materials to contain only the desired atoms. Alternatively, medicine can be much more focused in the way it deals with ailments by capitalizing on important atomic reactions.