I don’t follow your argument. Do you really believe supporting quantum computing development is analogous to VHS v. Betamax? Quantum computing is an evolutionary and significant advancement in computing and AI. The choice is do it or not. It isn’t choosing QC from among different competing technologies.
Of course, I’m sure when Obama wanted to wean us off of Middle Eastern oil in the name of national security, you were supporting him wholeheartedly. That was innovative and a “risk” which is what you support in an executive, after all. I wasn’t on the board then, but from everything you write recently, that must have been your position, right?
LOL. You're finally catching on.
I wholeheartedly agree about crony capitalism. While I accept the need for government to step into private business in support of the public interest in some cases. (The TVA is a good example) we have many other examples of rent-seeking businesses. They are a problem that Congress refuses to fix because the government largesse is a good way to buy votes.
He just might be the Werner Heisenberg of the 21st century.
Markus Pflitsch Is a German who could be the world’s leading expert on quantum computing. He has visited Trump twice at Mara Lago this year. He posted about the visits here.
The back story that my friend learns from the German language web sites is that Pflitsch is frustrated with the entrenched German bureaucracy, mostly with regard to financing. So he visited Trump. Here, through a combination of private equity, and government support, billions have been committed to the development of quantum computing in the U.S. Much of it this year. And for you Trump critics, Don Jr. is an investor in one of those PE firms.
Even Politico, an avowed Trump critic, begrudgingly gives Trump props for quantum computing even as it desperately tries put on a negative spin.
Im no expert, but I have read enough about quantum computing to know how revolutionary this is we have no choice to push ahead with all deliberate speed.
.
Wrong. There are competitors to QC and there are several competing types of QC.I don’t follow your argument. Do you really believe supporting quantum computing development is analogous to VHS v. Betamax? Quantum computing is an evolutionary and significant advancement in computing and AI. The choice is do it or not. It isn’t choosing QC from among different competing technologies.
If QC is so amazing and so inevitable, then BigCorps will invest in it and develop it--hey there, AI and your untold billions.
Any conservative should be able to follow the argument pretty easily:
- Decentralized knowledge: Conservative economists argue that no centralized government body can know enough to make the best resource allocation decisions for a complex, emerging technology like quantum computing. The market, with its millions of participants and decentralized knowledge, is seen as a more efficient and effective mechanism for innovation.
- Risk of backing failures: History is full of government-backed ventures that failed, wasting vast sums of taxpayer money. Examples often cited by critics of industrial policy include the Solyndra scandal and other failed green energy initiatives. The free market is more effective at identifying and allowing non-viable ventures to fail, freeing up capital for more promising ones.
- Stifled innovation: When the government picks a "winner," it can crowd out other, potentially more promising, competing technologies. Taxpayer-funded research or corporate subsidies give favored companies an unfair advantage, distorting market incentives and discouraging private investment in alternative solutions.
- Political pressure and cronyism: When the government controls a purse string, it opens the door to political pressure and cronyism. Funding decisions can be influenced by political connections and lobbying rather than pure economic merit. This leads to a misallocation of resources to companies and projects that are politically connected, not necessarily the most innovative.
- Waste and lack of accountability: Government-funded projects are often criticized for being susceptible to waste and lacking the accountability of the market. Projects can become entrenched and receive continued funding even when they are underperforming, as there is no competitive pressure or profit motive to drive efficiency.
- Blurs public and private sectors: Direct government investment in specific corporations blurs the lines between the private and public sectors, which is contrary to the free-market principles of limited government.
There are competitors to QC
Huh?
If QC is so amazing and so inevitable, then BigCorps will invest in it and develop it–hey there, AI and your untold billions.
Who is missing from the consortium? All big QC players are a part of this.
BigCorps will invest in it and develop it–hey there, AI and your untold billions.
They have, 7 x the billions from the U.S. Trumps kid is part of one of those.
Any conservative should be able to follow the argument pretty easily:
The completion is China. Not each other. The consortium includes all the US players. Your argument doesn’t apply.
Trump just signed an agreement with the UK. We have the German brain. His govt is placed loads of red tape in the way.
Of course the argument applies even if it's just QC (and QC has competitors--look it up). Any "consortium" will stifle the next innovators in the field by entrenching those in this group. LOL at all "big" players are part of this--you're proving my point not only about this but also about capitalism capturing democracy.There are competitors to QC
Huh?
If QC is so amazing and so inevitable, then BigCorps will invest in it and develop it–hey there, AI and your untold billions.
Who is missing from the consortium? All big QC players are a part of this.
BigCorps will invest in it and develop it–hey there, AI and your untold billions.
They have, 7 x the billions from the U.S. Trumps kid is part of one of those.
Any conservative should be able to follow the argument pretty easily:
The completion is China. Not each other. The consortium includes all the US players. Your argument doesn’t apply.
Trump just signed an agreement with the UK. We have the German brain. His govt is placed loads of red tape in the way.
Your argument might make sense if we were talking about better solar panels or better smart phones. We aren’t. I think quantum computing is the 21st century equivalent to the Manhattan Project or the moon shot. Whomever develops and employs it first will have huge advantages in all technologies including cyber warfare. We can’t be in second place.
This is why I drew an equivalency with Pflitsch and Heisenberg. Pflitsch seeking out Trump to convince him (and probably Musk) of the importance of QC is very significant. Apparently Trump is on board. The consortium was created during Trump’s first term, so Trump recognizing the vital role of QC is not new. I think Pflitsch took it into even deeper tech.
You are trying too hard to be critical.
Score update:
Ends justify means – II
Everybody does it – I
Comprehensive score update:
Ends justify means – II
Everybody does it – I
Get left behind - III
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
@shooter yes maybe he can invite some trannies to show their tits at the White House
#staywoke
because in your mind, being a pedo is the exact same thing as being a tranny.
And that tranny at the white house wasn't a dem politician nor was that behavior found acceptable as he/she was not invited back.
But facts don't matter to someone that has no issue defending pedophilia.
I'm going to argue with you for just a big just to see if 350 is the # of posts I need to get a yellow ball. (this is post #349)Score update:
Ends justify means – II
Everybody does it – I
Comprehensive score update:
Ends justify means – II
Everybody does it – I
Get left behind - III
.
So you’re in favor of government picking winners and losers? Huh.
In a vacuum, I am wholly against it. That said I am pragmatic enough to realize that we live in a rapidly changing world, one in which our adversaries aren't bound by self imposed ethical and dogmatic resitrictions, and as such what we do now as a nation will impact our future standing in the world (short and long term). Whether it's quantum computing, chip making, AI, crypto currency, mineral rights or any number of things we either lead from the front or get left behind.
lmao.
falsify an enemy so you can try to rationalize the shit you're willing to support.
better pray that when a dem is president, they have a little more morals than Trump and his shit followers who don't care one iota about the constitution.
@hurryinghoosiers who is a pedo? Link it. I can show you the tranny showing its tots at the White House. Link the pedo
I'm going to argue with you for just a big just to see if 350 is the # of posts I need to get a yellow ball. (this is post #349)Score update:
Ends justify means – II
Everybody does it – I
Comprehensive score update:
Ends justify means – II
Everybody does it – I
Get left behind - III
I'm afraid the reaction score formula is an unsolvable mystery.
As for my comprehensive scoring update I was going to include China, but was reluctant to do so as I had no idea what the Roman Numeral would be for 1.4 billion and reckoned it would be so large as to be considered spam. Turns out I was worried about nothing, as the figure is M̅C̅D̅ written in Roman Numerals.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"