Personally I find quantum computers really impressive, and they havent been given its righteous hype.

I know they won’t be something everyone has in their house but it will greatly improve some services.

  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    Either somewhere on the far left, and we’ll see some actual breakthrough with major impact in the future which actually gets hyped, or on the far right and it already happened, it was just too niche for anyone other than a specific small group to notice.

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the big breakthrough was in cryptography, and yeah, most people don’t care. All of your passwords will be useless against brute force attacks in 10-15 years from it tho!

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Even “quantum proof” passwords are trivially broken if quantum computers allow us to practically solve p=np.

          • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s a pretty big assumption though, and even then you can just switch to a new password format that allows for passwords that aren’t solvable using mathematical means. e.g. my password is to fill in a picture on 10x10 grid using 10 different colours. There’s no mathematical basis to guess my picture and there are more posibilites than there are particles in the observable universe.

            • AlotOfReading@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s perfectly solveable with math. Each grid square can take 10 colors, so there are 10^100 possibilities. That’s about 330 bits of entropy, or equivalent to a 51 character password. That’s gross overkill if the underlying cryptosystem isn’t broken, but insufficient if it is (depending on the details).

              Cryptography routinely deals with much, much larger numbers than what you’re suggesting (e.g. any RSA key), and even those get broken occasionally.

            • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s no more an assumption than “Our current quantum-proof passwords are secure against a type of computer that is entirely conceptual at current time.”