So they haven’t actually put any qubits on this, they just proven a novel way to fabricate _potential_ qubit architecture.

I’m still sceptical if quantum will take off in the foreseeable future if ever. Many people I talk to (laypeople like me) seem to think that QC is imminent and we need to prepare for it now.

We are still in the beginning stages of understanding whether scalable architectures are physically manufacturable at all.

They did, just not disclosing how many and in what configuration:

> Imec has succeeded in fabricating a functioning network of qubits with gaps of barely 6 nanometers. Thanks to the nanoscale of this hardware component, millions of quantum bits can theoretically be integrated onto a single chip.

> This demonstration builds on imec’s previous results with silicon quantum dot spin qubits, which already demonstrated that CMOS-compatible processes can lead to low charge noise and stable qubit operation. By adding High NA EUV lithography to the production process, the focus shifts from individual demonstration devices in the lab to 300mm fab-compatible [0], reproducible quantum bits.

Based on their previous publication from 2025 that used 0.33 NA EUV, I'd expect another 3x5 qubit device operating in a 10 mK environment, or something similar.

[0] "300 mm fab" being one thing, which these are then compatible with, in case anyone else was as confused reading this as I was. 300 mm (~1 ft) is the size (diameter) of the wafer.

> Many people I talk to (laypeople like me) seem to think that QC is imminent and we need to prepare for it now.

prepare in what ways? preparing for a CRQC to maybe appear sooner-rather-than later means moving to PQ encryption ~now; there are probably other less rational ways people 'prepare'

If you want to test if scaling works, you gotta scale it first.

A decade for this kind of robot seems very optimistic. The latest one being prototyped in Japan can roll you on your side and help you out on socks.

Cleaning your ass or helping you shower is magnitudes more sensitive and complex

What's the gap between a fancy bidet with all the bells and whistles and the robot that doesn't exist yet? Showering is obviously harder.

How do you rent out your place and don’t take any photos before?

I’m sure Airbnb operators get comfortable turning it over every few days without having to constantly take photos. Most guests don’t bring robots in to smash up the dishwasher and dent the walls

Sure but taking a photo of everything in its “good” state seems reasonable. You don’t need to constantly update the photos if nothing gets smashed.

We don’t really know the details. Perhaps they had “good state” photos that were rejected by Airbnb for not being recent enough.

While it’s not enforced perfectly, saying it’s not enforced not at all is just untrue.

Noyb alone has several hundred successful GDPR lawsuits: https://noyb.eu/en/project/cases

Spotify is a toxic shit company overall that is a general detriment to all musicians everywhere.

If you care about music just a little bit you should stop using it today and directly buy music from the artists you care about.

Bandcamp is great. Albums are usually ~$10 for high-fidelity digital downloads, and ~$25 gets you a vinyl record + the digital download.

Bandcamp is my preferred solution as well - apart from visiting concerts and buying merch etc directly from the artist, where possible.

Honestly, this is true for all streaming, not just Spotify. Stream if you want, but also buy albums from them if they offer it. Merch is even better.

Hell, even if you... acquire the music files unofficially and go buy a t-shirt or poster, the artist is still probably getting way more than they ever would have from you streaming all their albums on a loop.

It’s true but Spotify has consolidated the market in a way that I think no other provider has managed - maybe Tidal or YouTube Music. Some musicians that I know personally don’t like Spotify but they feel they have to be on there or be invisible.

Is seducing someone a cognitive task? In a way I guess it is but often there are a lot of meatspace factors at play as well.

Maybe a bit off topic but your comment made me wonder.

I think generally we don’t have a good definition of what intelligence is.

A bit off topic but as someone left handed I use my keyboard and mouse in exactly the same way as right handed people.

It was much easier to get used to this than figure out a custom lefthanded setup.

Same... I am left handed and I use the mouse with my right hand, and WASD would have been much more ergonomic.

> Back to LoC/s as a measure of "productivity."

IMO this doesn’t follow from what OP wrote. I personally measure it with a more abstract “how long does it take me to ship something that is useful in production and solving a real problem” and the increase in speed there has been massive for me. But of course I’m not a bigbrain 10x coder that is doing bleeding edge novel stuff like most people here, so gains might be more obvious for me than for others.

> how long does it take me to ship something that is useful in production and solving a real problem

But that’s only half of the problem. What about “and how easy it is to maintain long-term”. If you say that maintenance can be done via LLM, I would argue that there is zero guarantees that LLMs are backwards compatible and that the markdown you wrote now will work just as fine in 1,2,3 years

>I would argue that there is zero guarantees that LLMs are backwards compatible and that the markdown you wrote now will work just as fine in 1,2,3 years

That this would be the case is even more guaranteed than some programming language being backwards compatible and the code we wrote working just as fine in 1,2,3, years.

Languages do get non-backwards compatible changes, dependencies break, stuff is deprecated, etc.

But the job of LLMs will remain to generate something from a prompt, and the markdown we wrote, as it's high level and not tied to language versions, APIs, and implementation details, will be just as good a prompt for that in 2050 as it is in 2026.

"Languages do get non-backwards compatible changes, dependencies break, stuff is deprecated, etc."

Sure, but they're deterministic and sometimes you can even do automatic rewrites through AST inspection and writing back to the files instead of scripting string substitutions on them directly.

"But the job of LLMs will remain to generate something from a prompt, and the markdown we wrote, as it's high level and not tied to language versions, APIs, and implementation details, will be just as good a prompt for that in 2050 as it is in 2026."

Your organisation is keeping version control on the LLM:s you use? It's all local, old copies of these databases are kept in secure storage together with the querying and harnessing software?

I’m sure I would be just as useless as an LLM in the “niche stack” examples that you cited.

Why do you think that is actually a good argument against? Most “business” problems have already been solved in some way and the times I had to write really novel code in my career have been very very few.

Also sure LLMs haven’t solved cancer or unequality in the few years they exist - but humans also failed here in the last couple thousand

That’s wild. If my bank needs something from me they send an email saying that a message is available in the online portal - or in some cases they send me a physical letter. Anything else would be highly suspicious

Yeah my actually good bank (Starling) have an FAQ in their app saying “We will never call you”.