mranachi

Well your first statement is a subtle strawman. Ross said this way is the only way, because no one else is trying, not that it was the right way.

Secondly, fallacy fallacy, just because it's a false dichotomy doesn't mean it's not also correct. Can anyone just start up another initiative now? Not technically, but practically. Or would any serious attempt just join this movement to add to the momentum. Then if this fails, when can another attempt be made, how long till the 'political will' burnt by this campaign is regenerated?

That's sure is some verbose ignoring you've been doing.

I'd say if you are concerned, then the door is open to start a career in psychology research. But I think you'd struggle to move your emotions and pre-convinced notions out of your own way.

I can't say I know what I'd do if I were in your situation. But many people throughout history have chosen to write those books, and they have suffered for that choice, but they have also driven change.

Care to explain your point with some detail?

If this fails, I doubt we'll see a second proposal. So I think it would be fair to measure any arguments you make as why no action is better than the proposal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this petition doesn't decide the wording of any law just ensures it is brought to attention of EU lawmakers and discussed right?

Things change slowly then all at once.

Which is to say, the older generations are very set in their ways, but the new generations can be completely different.

You say you can write a book, maybe you should. Detail all the things you see and don't like. Give me a voice to the people who think like you.

I see war memorials as a reminder of what we're trying to avoid, not as a glorification.

No, I am not sure that I am.

Photonic processing, whilst very cool and super exciting, is not a quantum thing... Maxwells equations are exceedingly classical.

As for the rest it's transistor design optimisation, enabled predominantly by materials science and ASMLs EUV tech I guess:), but still exploits the same underlying 'quantum 1.0' physics.

Spintronics (which could be what you mean by 2D) is for sure in-between (1.5?), leveraging spin for low energy compute.

Quantum 2.0 is systems exploiting entanglement and superposition - i.e. qubits in a QPU (and a few quantum sensing applications).

[radioactive decay triggered the poison gas?]

[Quantum hype train?]

[Imposter syndrome?]

Good question. It would be application specific. I think evanescencnt wave coupling in EM radiation is considered " very classical" (whatever that actually means). But utilizing wave particle duality for tunneling devices is past quantum 1.0 (1.5 maybe?). However, superconductivity tunneling in Josephson junctions in a SQUID is closer to quantum 1.0, but 2.0 if used to generate entangled states for superconducting qbits for quantum computing.

Clear as mud right?

Can we trade?

Oh my sweet summer child, a 100x yes, if only it were possible.

But more seriously, if you're doing EE, the world of quantum is your oyster. Specialize in RF/MW design and implementation, we use it for qubit control, and you'll be highly valuable.

Quantum Physics Postdoc here. Although technically correct this is also somewhat misleading. You need the band structure of solids, which is due to quantization and Pauli exclusion principle. The same quantum mechanics that explains why we did those strange electron energy levels for atoms in highschool. The majority of quantum mechanics, however, is not required: coherence, spin, entanglement, superposition. In the field we describe semiconductors as quantum 1.0, and devices that use entanglement and superposition (i.e. a quantum computer) as quantum 2.0, and smear everything else in-between. This