<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: peepeepoopoo101</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=peepeepoopoo101</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:55:26 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=peepeepoopoo101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by peepeepoopoo101 in "Looking at some claims that quantum computers won't work"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There's an awful lot of handwaving in this blog post.  I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced.  The author mentions how some devices that can seemingly solve exponential time complexity problems also require exponentially high precision, but there doesn't seem to be a strong argument for why that doesn't apply to quantum computers.  We haven't experimentally demonstrated quantum computing at sufficient scales to prove that the required number of physical 
qubits to perform error correction doesn't scale exponentially.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:36:43 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42751979</link><dc:creator>peepeepoopoo101</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42751979</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42751979</guid></item></channel></rss>