TechTakes

but would it beat peace nobel prize for kissinger?

I thought it might be that kind of deal. I learned of this when I saw a pair of op-eds, one saying a W is deserved and the other saying the nom was insane.

Yeah, the controversy over federal ID cards is completely bafflying to me as well, and I imagine like many things in the US it's some sort of libertarian bugbear or something? But considering the President has now mandated that one's federal identity is fixed at birth by the angels, it turned out to be a blessing.

The worst part is I can't tell if that's not meant to be taken literally or if it is.

Thanks for adding the extra context! As I said, I don't have the necessary level of knowledge in physics (and also in cryptography) to have an informed opinion on these matters, so this is helpful. (I've wanted to get deeper in both topics for a long time, but life and everything has so far not allowed for it.)

About your last paragraph, do you by chance have any interesting links on "criticism of the criticism of string theory"? I wonder, because I have heard the argument "string theory is non-falsifiable and weird, but it's pushed over competing theories by entrenched people" several times already over the years. Now I wonder, is that actually a serious position or just conspiracy/crank stuff?

Comparing quantum computing to time machines or faster-than-light travel is unfair.

I didn't interpret the slides as an attack on quantum computing per se, but rather an attack on over-enthusiastic assertions of its near-future implications. If the likelihood of near-future QC breaking real-world cryptography is so extremely low, it's IMO okay to make a point by comparing it to things which are (probably) impossible. It's an exaggeration of course, and as you point out the analogy isn't correct in that way, but I still think it makes a good point.

What I find insightful about the comparison is that it puts the finger on a particular brain worm of the tech world: the unshakeable belief that every technical development will grow exponentially in its capabilities. So as soon as the most basic version of something is possible, it is believed that the most advanced forms of it will follow soon after. I think this belief was created because it's what actually happened with semiconductors, and of course the bold (in its day) prediction that was Moore's law, and then later again, the growth of the internet.

And now this thinking is applied to everything all the time, including quantum computers (and, as I pointed to in my earlier post, AI), driven by hype, by FOMO, by the fear of "this time I don't want to be among those who didn't recognize it early". But there is no inherent reason why a development should necessarily follow such a trajectory. That doesn't mean of course that it's impossible or won't get there eventually, just that it may take much more time.

So in that line of thought, I think it's ok to say "hey look everyone, we have very real actual problems in cryptography that need solving right now, and on the other hand here's the actual state and development of QC which you're all worrying about, but that stuff is so far away you might just as well worry about time machines, so please let's focus more on the actual problems of today." (that's at least how I interpret the presentation).

heh yup. I think the most recent one (somewhere in the last year) was something like 12-bit rsa? stupendously far off from being a meaningful thing

I’ll readily admit to being a cryptography mutt and a qc know-barely-anything, and even from my limited understanding the assessment of where people are at (with how many qubits they’ve managed to achieve in practical systems) everything is hilariously woefully far off ito attacks

that doesn’t entirely invalidate pqc and such (since the notion there is not merely defending against today/soon but also a significant timeline)

one thing I am curious about (and which you might’ve seen or be able to talk about, blake): is there any kind of known correlation between qubits and viable attacks? I realize part of this quite strongly depends on the attack method as well, but off the cuff I have a guess (“intuition” is probably the wrong word) that it probably scales some weird way (as opposed to linear/log/exp)