American Cheese: The IBM Quantum State of the Union

[Timothy Golden]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM

[whodat]

On 11/22/2021 4:17 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM

This web page discusses, among other things, the difference between
having a plan and a wish list.

Please note that without exception modern cranks all have wish lists and
none of them has an actual plan with time relevant achievable goals.

Fleischmann and Pons came out with cold fusion some years back. I had
hopes for them because they didn't fit the prototypical crank
appreciation. What they had was a failed and misanalyzed "experiment."
We see those here currently, fostered and fought for relentlessly by
their proponents, even in the face of reasonable analysis pointing out
their flaws. Fleischmann and Pons did not fall prey to that paradigm,
clearing them of the crank moniker.

Without belaboring the point, failure of new ideas is common, and
literally everyone wishes to see progress, so the claims of villainy
holding the world back are as much nonsense as the historical claim
that a new carburetor achieving 100 miles per gallon was held back by
the petroleum business for many decades.

So if someone has been labelled a crank, shake it off and if you are as
clever as you think you are, keep working to actually achieve something
worthwhile. Defending failed ideas achieves nothing. I haven't seen any
religious issues thwarting human progress in my lifetime. It probably
no longer exists.

Wish lists no, plans, si!

[James McGinn]

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM

I live in silicon valley. I've talked with a number of QC enthusiasts. It's like talking to a Christian about the second coming of Christ.

I put them on the spot about the fact QM indicates that real limits in determinacy and I ask them how you get anything useful from something that is indeterminate in principle.

They not only don't have answers (or evidence) but seem intellectually incapable of hearing the question.

People think that since us humans (in western society) are less religious now that we are less prone to believe nonsense. Exactly the opposite is the case.

Science has become religion to many. The internet amplifies this flaw in the human intellect. Science itself has become the religion by which nonsense is spread to the gullible.

James McGinn / Genius

[Solving Tornadoes]

You come off as a self righteous moron. This is meaningless dribble.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 11:21:07 UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
>
> I live in silicon valley. I've talked with a number of QC enthusiasts. It's like talking to a Christian about the second coming of Christ.

Quantum is about particles and not waves, and schizophrenia about the nature of light.
It is crazy, but suits the religious nutcases following creationism.

>
> I put them on the spot about the fact QM indicates that real limits in determinacy and I ask them how you get anything useful from something that is indeterminate in principle.

It is rubbish, but can be useful at times. Not such a bungle as relativity, and entropy.

>
> They not only don't have answers (or evidence) but seem intellectually incapable of hearing the question.

Fundies are like that, half-witted and tiresome. But they are very powerful politically, as there are so many of them and despite appearances support each other in fundamental madness.

>
> People think that since us humans (in western society) are less religious now that we are less prone to believe nonsense. Exactly the opposite is the case.

Sound religion is not nonsense. It is the greatest sense. It lifts us from our animal state. It is the basis of all progress from creativity. Corrupted religion is totally different, a curse.

>
> Science has become religion to many.

Pseudoscience has, under the label of science.

>The internet amplifies this flaw in the human intellect. Science itself has become the religion by which nonsense is spread to the gullible.

Pseudoscience is not science, just as organized religions are not religions but rackets, to the extent of corruption involved.
>
> James McGinn / Genius

[Timothy Golden]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 5:19:13 AM UTC-5, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 11:21:07 UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
> >
> > I live in silicon valley. I've talked with a number of QC enthusiasts. It's like talking to a Christian about the second coming of Christ.
> Quantum is about particles and not waves, and schizophrenia about the nature of light.

Some who have claimed to have disambiguated are claiming just the opposite: that the particles are waves, and that the wave nature is the proper primitive. It does sound attractive to me, but what exactly they mean by a wave; a wave that will not dissipate... Well that would be a particle I suppose. I don't necessarily find this dichotomy to be critical until more ground is covered, and really coming back to classical wave theory, which did not really unfold so easily. Acoustic instruments; arrows speeding truly through the air at high velocity; boats travelling efficiently through the water; these things are wave theory but the human managed to do quite well in these things experimentally. Theory as pure has been thrown away by the quantum people. We cannot then call them theorists. They are experimentalists, and if this experiment fails what will be the consequence?
https://longnow.org/seminars/02016/aug/09/quantum-computer-reality

[Jim Pennino]

What you meant to say was that everything he said theatens your
delusions and you don't want to hear it.

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
>
> I live in silicon valley. I've talked with a number of QC enthusiasts. It's like talking to a Christian about the second coming of Christ.
>
> I put them on the spot about the fact QM indicates that real limits in determinacy and I ask them how you get anything useful from something that is indeterminate in principle.

Likely they are stunned into silence by what a delusional fuck wit you
are.

>
> They not only don't have answers (or evidence) but seem intellectually incapable of hearing the question.

You mean like what are all these anomalies you claim exist and where are
they documented?

>
> People think that since us humans (in western society) are less religious now that we are less prone to believe nonsense. Exactly the opposite is the case.

Got any data to back that up?

I thought not.

>
> Science has become religion to many. The internet amplifies this flaw in the human intellect. Science itself has become the religion by which nonsense is spread to the gullible.

The internet is nothing more than an enormous library but without a
librarian to control what is there.

This means any gap toothed delusional fuck wit with a cell phone can
create a video saying any delusional thing that comes to his broken
mind.


>
> James McGinn / Delusional fuck wit

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/23/2021 9:47 AM, Jim Pennino wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
>>
>> I live in silicon valley. I've talked with a number of QC enthusiasts. It's like talking to a Christian about the second coming of Christ.
>>
>> I put them on the spot about the fact QM indicates that real limits in determinacy and I ask them how you get anything useful from something that is indeterminate in principle.
>
> Likely they are stunned into silence by what a delusional fuck wit you
> are.
>

>

> This means any gap toothed delusional fuck wit with a cell phone can
> create a video saying any delusional thing that comes to his broken
> mind.
>
>
>>
>> James McGinn / Delusional fuck wit
>
>

Delusional fuckwits on Line 1. They're really upset that you are
comparing McFly to them.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The international bowel movement?
Does that count?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 00:00:57 UTC+11, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 5:19:13 AM UTC-5, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 11:21:07 UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
> > >
> > > I live in silicon valley. I've talked with a number of QC enthusiasts. It's like talking to a Christian about the second coming of Christ.
> > Quantum is about particles and not waves, and schizophrenia about the nature of light.
> Some who have claimed to have disambiguated are claiming just the opposite: that the particles are waves, and that the wave nature is the proper primitive. It does sound attractive to me, but what exactly they mean by a wave; a wave that will not dissipate... Well that would be a particle I suppose. I don't necessarily find this dichotomy to be critical until more ground is covered, and really coming back to classical wave theory, which did not really unfold so easily. Acoustic instruments; arrows speeding truly through the air at high velocity; boats travelling efficiently through the water; these things are wave theory but the human managed to do quite well in these things experimentally. Theory as pure has been thrown away by the quantum people. We cannot then call them theorists. They are experimentalists, and if this experiment fails what will be the consequence?
> https://longnow.org/seminars/02016/aug/09/quantum-computer-reality

They are doing something and calling it quantum.
Liars cannot be believed.
Waves dissipate to very low values in the universe.
As the universe is infinite it dissipates to zero at infinity.

[Timothy Golden]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 2:17:38 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> The international bowel movement?
> Does that count?

Hey, now, these people delivered the PC to the public. We need more of this.
Unfortunately this QC shit seems like Deep Blah.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 08:00:48 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 00:00:57 UTC+11, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 5:19:13 AM UTC-5, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 11:21:07 UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:17:06 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
> > > >
> > > > I live in silicon valley. I've talked with a number of QC enthusiasts. It's like talking to a Christian about the second coming of Christ.
> > > Quantum is about particles and not waves, and schizophrenia about the nature of light.
> > Some who have claimed to have disambiguated are claiming just the opposite: that the particles are waves, and that the wave nature is the proper primitive. It does sound attractive to me, but what exactly they mean by a wave; a wave that will not dissipate... Well that would be a particle I suppose. I don't necessarily find this dichotomy to be critical until more ground is covered, and really coming back to classical wave theory, which did not really unfold so easily. Acoustic instruments; arrows speeding truly through the air at high velocity; boats travelling efficiently through the water; these things are wave theory but the human managed to do quite well in these things experimentally. Theory as pure has been thrown away by the quantum people. We cannot then call them theorists. They are experimentalists, and if this experiment fails what will be the consequence?
> > https://longnow.org/seminars/02016/aug/09/quantum-computer-reality
> They are doing something and calling it quantum.

I would bet that they are employing Vedic arithmetic for much faster computation, and attributing that to quantum baloney to maintain their traditions.
I wrote about Vedic arithmetic in sci.math several years ago. Googling should bring that out.
They should have implemented it in digital computation and apparently they have.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 7:21:45 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Delusional fuckwits on Line 1. They're really upset that you are
> comparing McFly to them.

So, do you concede you have no specific dispute with my theory?

James McGinn / Genius

[Michael Moroney]

I will only concede that you are a delusional fuckwit with zero evidence
of your alleged "theory".
>
> James McGinn / Tard
>

[James McGinn]

No. What is your specific dispute, you vague nitwit?

James McGinn / Genius

[Michael Moroney]

That you have zero evidence for your delusional beliefs (calling them a
"theory" is incorrect since in science, theories have supporting
evidence), but for some reason you feel you can make up for your lack of
evidence by demanding more evidence from others instead.
>
> James McGinn / Tard
>

[James McGinn]

LOL. You got nothing you vague nitwit.

[Jim Pennino]

I thought his post was crystal clear and exactly on point.

[Michael Moroney]

All that YOU have is "You got nothing!" and "LOL". I managed to get
both of them so my post really must have hit a sore point.

Anyway, I definitely don't have "nothing". I have Jim P.'s 192
references which you're too frightened to even look at, I have
textbooks, I have the local library, I have the required chemistry
classes needed for me to graduate, but most of all, I have Dalton's Law
of Partial Pressures. Too bad for you!
>

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:21:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> I put them on the spot about the fact QM indicates that real limits in determinacy and I ask them how you get anything useful from something that is indeterminate in principle.
>
> They not only don't have answers (or evidence) but seem intellectually incapable of hearing the question.

This is pretty much what you do here, only in reverse, Jimbo. Not only do *you* not have answers (or evidence), you also are intellectually incapable of hearing the question. Just more projection from Jimbo.

If you ever actually answered even a simple question I do believe that I might have heart palpitations...

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:39:44 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > LOL. You got nothing you vague nitwit.
> All that YOU have is "You got nothing!" and "LOL". I managed to get
> both of them so my post really must have hit a sore point.
>
> Anyway, I definitely don't have "nothing". I have Jim P.'s 192
> references which you're too frightened to even look at, I have
> textbooks, I have the local library, I have the required chemistry
> classes needed for me to graduate, but most of all, I have Dalton's Law
> of Partial Pressures. Too bad for you!
> >

So, you have references. Where's your argument?

James McGinn / Genius

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:01:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:

> > LOL. You got nothing you vague nitwit.
> I thought his post was crystal clear and exactly on point.

As in nonexistent.

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:01:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>> > LOL. You got nothing you vague nitwit.
>> I thought his post was crystal clear and exactly on point.
>
> As in nonexistent.

Nope, wrong again, but you should be used to that.

>
> James McGinn / Delusional Fuck Wit

[Michael Moroney]

In those 192+ references which you're too afraid to even look at!

Meanwhile, how many references do you have to support your kꙫꙫky claims?
ZERO. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Goose Egg. Zip.
>
> James McGinn / Tard
>

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:26:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > So, you have references. Where's your argument?

> In those 192+ references

Your argument is in your references? What does this mean?

Explain how this is even possible.

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:26:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> > So, you have references. Where's your argument?
>
>> In those 192+ references
>
> Your argument is in your references? What does this mean?

It means all you theories are nonsense.

> Explain how this is even possible.

Likely it is due to you being a loser and your delusions are the only
thing that provide you with any feelings of self worth, all of which is
probably due to your upbringing.

[Timothy Golden]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:01:10 AM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:

Jim where are you on the quantum computer?

[Jim Pennino]

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim where are you on the quantum computer?

What in the world does that mean?

FYI two qubit quantum computers can be purchased for $5k these days.

If you are asking my opinion of the state of the art, I would say we are
roughly at a point comparable to the release of the Apple 1.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:27:25 AM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:01:10 AM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> Jim where are you on the quantum computer?

It's complete nonsense.

Trust me, I know.

James McGinn / Genius

[James McGinn]

You church-lady morons can't think straight. You believe because you believe.

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

I would not trust you to give instructions on how to tie the laces on a
pair of sneakers as you seem to know nothing about anything.

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:01:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:26:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >
>> >> > So, you have references. Where's your argument?
>> >
>> >> In those 192+ references
>> >
>> > Your argument is in your references? What does this mean?
>> It means all you theories are nonsense.
>> > Explain how this is even possible.
>> Likely it is due to you being a loser and your delusions are the only
>> thing that provide you with any feelings of self worth, all of which is
>> probably due to your upbringing.
>> >
>> > James McGinn / Delusional Fuck Wit
>
> You church-lady morons can't think straight. You believe because you believe.

192 easily found references that easily refute all your theories shows
you to be a delusional fuck wit.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:46:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:01:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:26:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > So, you have references. Where's your argument?
> >> >
> >> >> In those 192+ references
> >> >
> >> > Your argument is in your references? What does this mean?
> >> It means all you theories are nonsense.
> >> > Explain how this is even possible.
> >> Likely it is due to you being a loser and your delusions are the only
> >> thing that provide you with any feelings of self worth, all of which is
> >> probably due to your upbringing.
> >> >
> >> > James McGinn / Delusional Fuck Wit
> >
> > You church-lady morons can't think straight. You believe because you believe.
> 192 easily found references that easily refute all your theories shows
> you to be a delusional fuck wit.

Lying piece of shit. You got nothing you lying asshole.

[James McGinn]

Science groupies believe everything "everybody" believes.

Real science involve understanding. Understanding involves details.

Science groupies are all confused, vague nitwits.

[Jim Pennino]

So this list of 192 easily found references doesn't exist and that you
have been presented with such numerous times now is not true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References

footnote references: 102
Bibliography: 15 books and papers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References

footnote references: 25
Bibliography: 4 books and papers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References

references: 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References

references: 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References

references: 17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References

references: 11

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:31:08 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:27:25 AM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:01:10 AM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim where are you on the quantum computer?
>> >
>> > It's complete nonsense.
>> >
>> > Trust me, I know.
>> I would not trust you to give instructions on how to tie the laces on a
>> pair of sneakers as you seem to know nothing about anything.
>> >
>> > James McGinn / Delusional Fuck Wit
>
> Science groupies believe everything "everybody" believes.

Maybe, but you have nothing to show this is true or a definition of what
a "science groupy" might be.

> Real science involve understanding. Understanding involves details.

Real science involves understanding all the prior art, i.e. researching
the existing body of knowledge on the subject, and doing experiments that
provide reproducible data.

> Science groupies are all confused, vague nitwits.

And you are the prime example of a confused, vague nitwit.

No research of the existing body of knowledge and in fact total denial
that such knowledge exists even after being spoon fed a list of such.

[Paul Alsing]

Jimbo, if you actually had a brain I'm pretty sure that you would take it out and play with it...

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/25/2021 2:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> Real science involve understanding. Understanding involves details.

Real science involves actual reproducible observations and evidence
which clearly support your theory. You have NEVER done that, you pretender!

[Timothy Golden]

If digital logic suffered the problems that the quantum circuit is facing then digital logic would not exist.
I would say we are roughly at a point comparable to the release of the analog computer.
It is not looking good for this 'technology'.
I will own though that I've developed this opinion a long time ago and as it settles onto me the possibility of being wrong hurts more and more the longer it goes on. The same is even more true though for the other side.

If quantum computation fails what will be the consequence?
Will quantum theory then be a failure?
I am interested in what this possibility would mean.
Call me a pessimist, but I'd rather identify as a skeptic.

[Jim Pennino]

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jim where are you on the quantum computer?
>> What in the world does that mean?
>>
>> FYI two qubit quantum computers can be purchased for $5k these days.
>>
>> If you are asking my opinion of the state of the art, I would say we are
>> roughly at a point comparable to the release of the Apple 1.
>
> If digital logic suffered the problems that the quantum circuit is facing then digital logic would not exist.
> I would say we are roughly at a point comparable to the release of the analog computer.

Nonsense.

The only technical issue with analog computers was that you were always
replacing the tubes in the op-amps as their gain figures degraded.

> It is not looking good for this 'technology'.

With entry level quantum computers being available for $5k, I would say
the future looks very promising.

> I will own though that I've developed this opinion a long time ago and as it settles onto me the possibility of being wrong hurts more and more the longer it goes on. The same is even more true though for the other side.
>
> If quantum computation fails what will be the consequence?

The theory already works. Now the work is on scale.

> Will quantum theory then be a failure?

Of course not.

> I am interested in what this possibility would mean.
> Call me a pessimist, but I'd rather identify as a skeptic.

Perhaps you need to understand the meaning of "marketing hype".

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/25/2021 1:20 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:26:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> So, you have references. Where's your argument?
>
>> In those 192+ references
>
> Your argument is in your references? What does this mean?

It means you're still a dumbfuck who cannot follow any of 192 references.

>
> Explain how this is even possible.

How it's possible that you're such a dumbfuck? You took stupid pills?
You are really a computer program, an errant experiment in artificial
stupidity?

[Timothy Golden]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:31:11 AM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jim where are you on the quantum computer?
> >> What in the world does that mean?
> >>
> >> FYI two qubit quantum computers can be purchased for $5k these days.
> >>
> >> If you are asking my opinion of the state of the art, I would say we are
> >> roughly at a point comparable to the release of the Apple 1.
> >
> > If digital logic suffered the problems that the quantum circuit is facing then digital logic would not exist.
> > I would say we are roughly at a point comparable to the release of the analog computer.
> Nonsense.
>
> The only technical issue with analog computers was that you were always
> replacing the tubes in the op-amps as their gain figures degraded.
> > It is not looking good for this 'technology'.
> With entry level quantum computers being available for $5k, I would say
> the future looks very promising.

I'll be really thrilled when we network our quantum computers through quantum modems.
They are so fast, right? Everything gets sent all at once! They're amazing...
If we could just get those error rates down... what was the figure?
Here is one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM&t=10m34s
CNOT error rate? 0.03 ?
How about never?
How about once in a cosmic ray event?
WTF?

[Jim Pennino]

Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 10:31:11 AM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> >> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Jim where are you on the quantum computer?
>> >> What in the world does that mean?
>> >>
>> >> FYI two qubit quantum computers can be purchased for $5k these days.
>> >>
>> >> If you are asking my opinion of the state of the art, I would say we are
>> >> roughly at a point comparable to the release of the Apple 1.
>> >
>> > If digital logic suffered the problems that the quantum circuit is facing then digital logic would not exist.
>> > I would say we are roughly at a point comparable to the release of the analog computer.
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> The only technical issue with analog computers was that you were always
>> replacing the tubes in the op-amps as their gain figures degraded.

I forgot to mention the difficulty of building parts for the first
analog computers of 4,000 years ago.

>> > It is not looking good for this 'technology'.
>> With entry level quantum computers being available for $5k, I would say
>> the future looks very promising.
>
> I'll be really thrilled when we network our quantum computers through quantum modems.

And the point of doing that would be?

> They are so fast, right? Everything gets sent all at once! They're amazing...
> If we could just get those error rates down... what was the figure?
> Here is one:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM&t=10m34s
> CNOT error rate? 0.03 ?
> How about never?
> How about once in a cosmic ray event?
> WTF?

Do you have the slightest clue of what the real and potential advantages
of quantum computing actually are?

[Serg io]

On 11/23/2021 2:34 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:54:17 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>> On 11/22/2021 4:17 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
>>
>> This web page discusses, among other things, the difference between
>> having a plan and a wish list.
>>
>> Please note that without exception modern cranks all have wish lists and
>> none of them has an actual plan with time relevant achievable goals.
>>
>> Fleischmann and Pons came out with cold fusion some years back. I had
>> hopes for them because they didn't fit the prototypical crank
>> appreciation. What they had was a failed and misanalyzed "experiment."
>> We see those here currently, fostered and fought for relentlessly by
>> their proponents, even in the face of reasonable analysis pointing out
>> their flaws. Fleischmann and Pons did not fall prey to that paradigm,
>> clearing them of the crank moniker.
>>
>> Without belaboring the point, failure of new ideas is common, and
>> literally everyone wishes to see progress, so the claims of villainy
>> holding the world back are as much nonsense as the historical claim
>> that a new carburetor achieving 100 miles per gallon was held back by
>> the petroleum business for many decades.
>>
>> So if someone has been labelled a crank, shake it off and if you are as
>> clever as you think you are, keep working to actually achieve something
>> worthwhile. Defending failed ideas achieves nothing. I haven't seen any
>> religious issues thwarting human progress in my lifetime. It probably
>> no longer exists.
>>
>> Wish lists no, plans, si!
>
> You come off as a self righteous moron. This is meaningless dribble.
>

you're projecting again...

[whodat]

Thanks for answering him. You can clearly see in this example why I
don't even read his nonsense, all he;s trying to do is to evoke another
fight and he hasn't even brought anything to do battle, because he's
incapable of worthy debate.

[Timothy Golden]

I am caught actually potentially arguing on the wrong side of history. But who has pie in their face?
Should we allow that nobody yet has pie in their face?
Should we study the money flow?
In that this beast is above and beyond money flow; yes: technology is what defines us. Possibly not completely, but it has a powerful vector on our existence... said as I sit here in a synthetic jacket with a synthetic hat on my head. No, I don't have any synthetics in my body yet, but it is likely just a matter of time. Certainly my knees are worn and but for my ability to kick back a bit they'd be far worse I think. How many elder native americans suffered back pain? knee pain? If the answer is less than us then they had one up on our society. That we have such riches that we can throw away that which will be servicable for centuries for that which can be made yesterday; well, with some automation, sir, today and custom fit perfectly to your body. Your chair? Imperfect, Sir! Your left butt cheek is under slightly more pressure than your right. Your inability to counter for this in your knees is causing your back great and steady stress. So as you were told as a child to sit in a seat for eight hours a day, did you do your homework in a chair? Oh what a strong body you must not have. Myself as well, sir. I do feel some sort of disjustice is upon us now in these times of globalization. That my own county's guilt in action fully exposed now nearly disclosed, and the media unaccountable? As some touch down eight years later I was on this dubious ground long before. I was studying Seth Rich and really feeling in on the darkest moments of the DNC.

[whodat]

On 11/27/2021 10:27 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:40:52 AM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
>> On 11/26/2021 8:26 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2021 2:34 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

[...]

> I am caught actually potentially arguing on the wrong side of history. But who has pie in their face?
> Should we allow that nobody yet has pie in their face?
> Should we study the money flow?
> In that this beast is above and beyond money flow; yes: technology is what defines us. Possibly not completely, but it has a powerful vector on our

<snip>

1) As every properly experienced Usenet poster knows, when you run a
bunch of lines together software such as Firefox thinks it is binary
code and refuses to permit a response. Your reply is DOA to most
posters.

2) You forgot to include a reference to "free energy."

3) What, if anything, did your reply have to do with physics?

4) Cute, but...

[Serg io]

On 11/27/2021 10:27 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:

you cannot be caught, you haven't done anything.

> But who has pie in their face?

now you change subject to food...

> Should we allow that nobody yet has pie in their face?

now you change subject to fascism...

> Should we study the money flow?

now you change subject to money...

> In that this beast


now you change subject to animals...

<snip crap>

you need to improve your BOT, it is stupid.

[Timothy Golden]

Whodat cheese? American Cheese?
Cheese in a trap, sir.
Put your cheese in the deep freeze, please, sir.
We'll chip it out and fry it up another day.

Let us see now, the quote:
" Gates Per Error ?"
"Error Per Gate Plane"
0.001; errors per gate?
A one in one thousand error?
Error in what exactly?
Up/Down? Binary?
Oh now, we are analog already,
as I understand it,
and quite shadily I might add.

So much sounds like nonsense to me these days, and occasionally I have a bit of theoretical proof. Here now though I am just caused to wonder how we can't just be more egalitarian about our electrons. Is it to say that a chain of one, two , or three electrons is a no-go? As in you chuck one once, then two next, then three, ahh, and I haven't even gotten the link to the quote above in here yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM&t=10m

The temptations of discrete charge computers as a simple business is tantalizing without any of the quantum nonsense. We are being diverted, sir.

[Timothy Golden]

Hey, it's nice to see you loosen up a little over here!
Very Cool.
Now how about this chick.
You've really got to listen to her 56 day computation argument,
which is a barrier they are 'about to resolve'.
Really slick, and when you process what they are saying carefully,
you start to get the hint that QC is screwed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM&t=11m40s

[Timothy Golden]

"Control Evil"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM&t=27m50s

[Timothy Golden]

Sorry, it was "to handle Evil"

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM&t=27m50s

[Timothy Golden]

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:37:58 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:

Well Dat, the fusion guys are starting to land in an argument that fusion energy will not be energy efficient.
The power needed to run the magnets and the chillers and all that is cost. The fusion reactor is over there, sir. (points at the sun)

[whodat]

What religion got right before science kicked in is that the
future is not reliably predictable. A few hundred years go we
had no idea we would be where we are now. The necessary caveat,
"if things continue as they are going now" reliably negates
most predictions.

It is very hard, if not impossible, to see around the corners
that stand between what we are/have now and what we call the
future.

[Timothy Golden]

Sun Nov 28 07:16:21 EST 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM&t=1670s&t=28m31s
"I'm Matt Langione, Principal of the Boston Consulting Group, and one of the leaders in our deep tech mission.
Over the past three years we at BCG have had hundreds of conversations with potential end users of quantum computing in boardrooms, out in the field, in government labs. We've worked hand in hand to find high value use cases to find high value cases for quantum computers when they mature. But the natural follow-up question, when in fact will they mature has been too difficult to answer with the right level of specificity. Until now. The new roadmap that IBM has laid out, allows us to chart a path to value that ties the computational complexity of real industry use cases to specific milestones and solution maturity that will play out over the next few years. The results are very, very promising. IBM's roadmap is not just concrete. It's also ambitious. We think the technical capabilities that Jay and team have outlined today will help create $3 billion in value for end users during the period described. And they set the groundwork for much more to come.
Take financial services, where portfolio optimization is limited today by the type of constraints that classical optimizers can handle at scale. They struggle with non-continuous non-convex functions, things like interest rate yield curves, trading LATS, buy-in thresholds, transaction costs. Adding these constraints to the calculation makes the optimization surface too complex for classical optimizers. But it also improves trading strategies by as much as 25 basis points with gate fidelity at four nines by 2024. With runtimes that integrate classical resources and have error mitigation built in, we believe this is the sort of capability that could be in trader workflows by 2025. So to for the mesh optimizers that power computational fluid dynamics for aerospace and automotive design. In the next three years, quantum computers could already stat powering past node limits that constrain surface size and accuracy today. IBM can't do it alone. It will take an entire ecosystem to specify high value problems and design the right solutions. But a concrete roadmap like this gives developers, business leaders, and investors confidence that the engine that powers it all is only getting stronger and stronger."

Pull out all the finger pointing and the greedy money grabber talk, and the crux is of a 'concrete roadmap' with a magical takeoff point in 2022 according to the graphics. Gee, its just around the corner... better buy in now if I want to be in on the fiscal gains. Meanwhile they are insisting on spaghetti for monsters and spaghetti for lunch. Hey, I don't mind free spaghetti, but I'm not putting five percent of my portfolio on this crap... not that I have such a portfolio, by the way... I am more concerned with the truth. Cleatly we are witnessing a pile of marketing people here in this video promising technical stuff, and willing to spout nonsense.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 4:47:09 AM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:

we are witnessing a pile of marketing people here in this video promising technical stuff, and willing to spout nonsense.

Yep. QC is just marketing.

James McGinn / Genius

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 4:24:58 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
> What religion got right before science kicked in.

Science never "kicked in." Humans are still humans. Humans still form deep emotional attachment group beliefs.

You are using "science" as an excuse not to apply the scientific method.

You intellectual panzies don't really understand science at all.

James McGinn / Genius

[Michael Moroney]

On 12/1/2021 3:13 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 4:24:58 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>> What religion got right before science kicked in.
>
> Science never "kicked in." Humans are still humans. Humans still form deep emotional attachment group beliefs.

Yes, James, we understand you have an emotional attachment for your
"cold steam" foolishness, despite zero evidence. So you'll never give it
up, and will remain a tard until you die.

>
> You are using "science" as an excuse not to apply the scientific method.

That's what you're doing, James. The scientific method requires
reproduceable observations and experimental results, yet your "cold
steam" has none of that. So your foolishness isn't science.
>
> James McGinn / Tard
>

[Timothy Golden]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:48:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/1/2021 3:13 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 4:24:58 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
> >> What religion got right before science kicked in.
> >
> > Science never "kicked in." Humans are still humans. Humans still form deep emotional attachment group beliefs.
> Yes, James, we understand you have an emotional attachment for your
> "cold steam" foolishness, despite zero evidence. So you'll never give it
> up, and will remain a tard until you die.
> >
> > You are using "science" as an excuse not to apply the scientific method.
> That's what you're doing, James.
> The scientific method requires reproduceable observations
> and experimental results,

It also includes a right to change the system; a right to dither it somehow. Without this right assignable observations from a learning algorithm may not be possible. Though in hindsight this mechanism is not axiomatic it can be taken diplomatically I think as a limiting mechanism.

Should we be only an orb with no tactile feedback; no sense of posessions; no ability to even give anything away; then the state of an orb of this environment would be drastically different from our own abilities. Indeed we are not orbs. Most of us at any rate. Blind men can do some amazing things. Deaf men too. A blind and deaf man obviously raises the stakes, and yet most will fall onto the spectrum in their age. As they lose touch with their observational skills would it make sense that they gain some tactile abilities? Yes, of course it would. This is a regimen if you like, that I can recommend. Try not to lose any fingers at it.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:48:14 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> The scientific method requires
> reproduceable observations and experimental results

You amateurs can't grasp the fact that the scientific method MUST be applied indiscriminately.

If this isn't obvious to you then you really should find a different hobby.

James McGinn / Genius

[Michael Moroney]

On 12/1/2021 12:46 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 12:48:14 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> The scientific method requires

>> reproduceable observations and experimental results[, yet your "cold steam" has none of that. So your foolishness isn't science.]

>
> You amateurs can't grasp the fact that the scientific method MUST be applied indiscriminately.

You're not even an amateur, James. Not only don't you have the
observations and experimental results needed for science, you have no
clue how wrong you are. You don't even try to apply the scientific
method to your wacky beliefs because you have no observations or
experimental results, and you know it.

>
> If this isn't obvious to you then you really should find a different hobby.

Yes, James, you need a different hobby (obsession). Science isn't for you.
>
> James McGinn / Tard
>

[Timothy Golden]

Guys, you really need to cut some slack here for each other. Clever rhetoric is far more interesting to read than base insults. Please get some creativity into your slurs, sirs. And then too, how about a touch of content? Sometimes it seems that the only thing that isn't science fiction is friction. That the quants are experiencing friction is a fair assessment imo. As to what the extensive statement is on this failing: if this failing holds and is not merely infancy growing pains then we must cast the aperture open, so to speak. They handily widened it one way to get their spin results. It was a lie from the get-go. All the diagrams ignore this detail. It was a fuzzy image until they forced it.

[Timothy Golden]

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qBrLqvESNM
https://bullshit.ist/some-quantum-weirdness-with-the-simplest-maths-possible-446d33046cf7