Yeah, this is the career-protecting diplomacy of the paper. ...

Zsubmariner

npub1csmgc5fwwr3k2k86zeuk0ntnljp632g8agut8mtgxk8uhhatpknq3qcakv

hex

43d89a7a2471a4ef883cd862b1f4b418e62a055da1b23afb686885ffe3f9a679

nevent

nevent1qqsy8ky60gj8rf803q7dsc437j6p3e32q4w6rv36ld5x3p0lu0u6v7gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsvgd5v2yh8pcm9trapv7t8e4eleqag4yr75w9na45rtr7tm74smfs85xtyw

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-04-13T03:44:59Z

↳ Reply to lkraider (npub18c8hgn254nhgutrlag9793x0n8qgnf864qll0nxr6rvlrdv6x33ses353s)

My Ai reading trying to predict the failure mode: If that classical Planck-local picture is true, the most likely failure is not “the chip explodes a...

Yeah, this is the career-protecting diplomacy of the paper. What it really means is that computation is physical. You have to represent your parameters physically. QC dreams require representing parameters beyond the information capacity of matter. aka below planck scale. Just because you can describe infinite scaling in abstract formulae, doesn't mean you can physically compute that way. Finite information fits in matter and the hard ceiling is Planck. Negative proof is a silly standard, but I understand why the authors are afraid to be direct.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "43d89a7a2471a4ef883cd862b1f4b418e62a055da1b23afb686885ffe3f9a679",
  "pubkey": "c4368c512e70e36558fa167967cd73fc83a8a907ea38b3ed68358fcbdfab0da6",
  "created_at": 1776051899,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "3c4f51561243524f307ed2ee272c7cf4a782404fbe3a176606043b6ad427ee77"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "83e818dfbeccea56b0f551576b3fd39a7a50e1d8159343500368fa085ccd964b"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "c4368c512e70e36558fa167967cd73fc83a8a907ea38b3ed68358fcbdfab0da6"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "3e0f744d54acee8e2c7fea0be2c4cf99c089a4faa83ff7ccc3d0d9f1b59a3463",
      "wss://nos.lol"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "c4368c512e70e36558fa167967cd73fc83a8a907ea38b3ed68358fcbdfab0da6",
      "wss://relay.damus.io"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "b882d48872b86200ecc572cbc1014f1cd558871aa4e311433dc05315e783f00e",
      "wss://nos.lol",
      "reply",
      "3e0f744d54acee8e2c7fea0be2c4cf99c089a4faa83ff7ccc3d0d9f1b59a3463"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "a907e1f0a2f6d6f906abda5ab3cd3957ab45aefdf9b38a1331a4d605783541f9",
      "wss://relay.damus.io",
      "root",
      "c4368c512e70e36558fa167967cd73fc83a8a907ea38b3ed68358fcbdfab0da6"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Primal Android"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Yeah, this is the career-protecting diplomacy of the paper. What it really means is that computation is physical. You have to represent your parameters physically. QC dreams require representing parameters beyond the information capacity of matter. aka below planck scale. Just because you can describe infinite scaling in abstract formulae, doesn't mean you can physically compute that way. Finite information fits in matter and the hard ceiling is Planck. Negative proof is a silly standard, but I understand why the authors are afraid to be direct. \n\n",
  "sig": "d3478a1cebdf5132bd3baf7d1e33f97a21b238525e46fe2083c44de82c22203e8eaf14ba2b3492cd330a1f741efa6513a89506d7856dee71a3a41f89a279b7ff"
}