Connect with us

Tech

IBM casts doubt on Google’s claims of quantum supremacy

Published

on

google

A study from Google claiming quantum supremacy, accidentally leaked online a month ago, has now been published in Nature. The Google group reiterates its claim that, in 200 seconds, its 53-qubit computer performed an arcane task that would take 10,000 years for Summit, a supercomputer IBM built for the Department of Energy that is currently the world’s fastest. But IBM appears to have already rebutted Google’s claim. On 21 October, it announced that, by tweaking the way Summit approaches the task, it can do it far faster: in 2.5 days. IBM says the threshold for quantum supremacy—doing something that a classical computer can’t—has thus still not been met. The race continues. Read our earlier story:

The age of quantum computing may have begun not with a flashy press conference, but with an internet leak. According to a paper posted briefly—and presumably mistakenly—to a lab site, physicists at Google have used a quantum computer to perform a calculation that would overwhelm the world’s best conventional supercomputer. Although the specific computation has no known use, the result means scientists have passed a milestone known as “quantum supremacy.”

“It’s a great scientific achievement,” says physicist Chad Rigetti, founder and CEO of Rigetti Computing in Berkeley and Fremont, California, which is developing its own quantum computers. “Google called their shot,” he adds, noting that the company detailed exactly how it would demonstrate quantum supremacy a couple of years ago. Greg Kuperberg, a mathematician at the University of California, Davis, calls the advance “a big step toward kicking away any plausible argument that making a quantum computer is impossible.”

According to the Financial Times, which broke the story, the paper appeared last week on the website of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California; some of the researchers there are paper authors. Readers downloaded the manuscript before it vanished, and it is circulating online. John Martinis, the physicist who leads Google’s quantum computing effort in Santa Barbara, California, declined to comment on the paper, but others in the field think it is legitimate.

A quantum computer aims to exploit the strange aspects of quantum mechanics to perform types of calculations that would swamp a classical computer. Whereas a classical computer depends on “bits” of information that can be set as either zero or one, a quantum computer employs qubits which can be set to zero, one, or—thanks to quantum mechanics—any combination of zero and one at the same time. That enables a quantum computer to process a multitude of inputs simultaneously. For example, a 10-qubit quantum computer could process 210, or 1024, possible inputs at once instead of analyzing them one at a time.

But such a computer’s real power comes from other quantum phenomena. For certain computational problems, all potential solutions can be thought of as quantum waves simultaneously sloshing among the qubits. Set things up right and those waves interfere with one another so that incorrect answers cancel one another and the right answer pops out. Such interference should enable a full-fledged quantum computer to hack current internet encryption schemes by factoring the huge numbers that underlie them.

That feat would require thousands of qubits, so Martinis and colleagues conceived a problem on which a quantum computer with just dozens of qubits could best any conventional rival. The 53 qubits in their device consist of tiny circuits of superconducting metal that can be in a low-energy state to denote zero, a high-energy state to denote one, or both at the same time—at least until measured, when such two-way states collapse one way or the other. The researchers then made pairs of qubits interact in various ways through a fixed but random set of operations.

Taken as a group, the qubits output any number between zero and 253. Thanks to quantum interference caused by the operations, some numbers should show up more often than others. And as the number of qubits grows, calculating that uneven distribution of outputs would become overwhelmingly difficult for an ordinary computer. So, if experimenters see the telltale unequal pattern of outputted numbers, they have evidence their quantum device calculated something a conventional computer cannot.

As with any quantum computing effort, the key was to preserve the qubits’ delicate quantum states throughout the process. If they fuzz out then all outputs become equally likely. But the Google team reports that it managed to see the telltale pattern in the generated numbers. To prove the pattern wasn’t just noise, researchers compared the results for smaller trials and subgroups of the qubits with supercomputer simulations. They couldn’t do that for the biggest instances of the problem, however. What the quantum computer could do in a little over 3 minutes would take a supercomputer 10,000 years to reproduce, they estimate.

Some researchers say the demonstration isn’t so much a computation as an effort to cook up a quantum state that’s hard to simulate. “Quantum computers are not ‘supreme’ against classical computers because of a laboratory experiment designed to essentially … implement one very specific quantum sampling procedure with no practical applications,” says Dario Gil, director of IBM Research in Yorktown Heights, New York, which is also developing machines with superconducting qubits.

The Google computer also lacks the ability to correct errors, which may be key to making a full-fledged quantum computer. That requires encoding a single, more stable “logical” qubit in several less reliable “physical” ones, to enable the machine to maintain quantum states much longer, Kuperberg explains. Rigetti, however, notes that Google’s achievement may put the company in an ideal position to demonstrate such error correction, too.

Gil voices another worry long held by many the field: that after all the hype surrounding quantum supremacy, quantum computing may experience a letdown like the one that plagued the field of artificial intelligence from the 1970s until the current decade, when technology finally caught up with aspirations. In the leaked paper, however, the 76 authors optimistically conclude: “We are only one creative algorithm away from valuable near-term applications.”

 

Source sciencemag.org

By Adrian Cho

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

Nintendo is adding paid memberships to Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp

Published

on

By

Animal Crossing

Nintendo plans to launch paid subscription memberships for its smartphone game Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp later this week, according to an in-game news update. The company says one plan lets you “appoint one lucky animal as your camp caretaker and get some extra help around the campsite,” while with another you’ll “receive fortune cookies and store your furniture and clothing items in warehouses.”

Nintendo released its latest mobile game, Mario Kart Tour, last month with a surprising optional subscription: a $4.99-a-month “Gold Pass” that unlocks a faster speed mode and gives users access to more in-game items. The company says it will reveal more information about the Animal Crossing memberships in videos that are due to be released on Wednesday.

Despite the hype surrounding Nintendo’s belated decision to start making smartphone games after years of pleas from investors, mobile remains a small part of the company’s overall business. Nintendo doesn’t break out specific mobile sales figures, but in its most recent earnings report said that first-half revenue for mobile and IP licensing totaled 19.9 billion yen. which is up 6.4 percent year-on-year but represents less than five percent of the company’s overall sales.

“[Mario Kart Tour] earnings are also off to a good start,” president Shuntaro Furakawa told investors at the financial results briefing after commenting on the game’s download figures. “In addition to randomized items, we have created opportunities to generate revenue such as the Gold Pass subscription to meet the various needs of consumers, allowing them to enjoy the game. By including these mechanics and multiplayer functionality, we want to make it an attractive application that will be enjoyed by consumers in the long-term.”

Nintendo’s mobile games have been hit and miss in terms of both their quality and their financial performance, but if subscriptions are a model that turns out to work, you can expect to see more of them in future titles.

Source theverge.com

By Sam Byford

Continue Reading

Business

Web & Domain Protection Software Market SWOT Analysis by Key Players: Leaseweb, Namecheap, SiteLock, Verisign, Sucuri

Published

on

By

namecheap

The Latest research study released by HTF MI “Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market” with 100+ pages of analysis on business Strategy taken up by key and emerging industry players and delivers know how of the current market development, landscape, technologies, drivers, opportunities, market viewpoint and status. The research study provides estimates for Global Web & Domain Protection Software market Forecasted till 2025*. Some of the Major Companies covered in this Research are ZeroFOX, Comodo, Domain.com, GoDaddy, Register.com, Leaseweb, Namecheap, SiteLock, Verisign, Sucuri, Cloudflare, Pointer Brand Protection, Sasahost, WebARX, AppRiver, Rebel.com

Click here for free sample + related graphs of the report @: https://www.htfmarketreport.com/sample-report/1585651-global-web-domain-protection-software-market

Browse market information, tables and figures extent in-depth TOC on “Web & Domain Protection Software Market by Application (Large Enterprises & Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)), by Product Type (, Cloud-Based & On-Premise), Business scope, Manufacturing and Outlook – Estimate to 2025”.

At last, all parts of the Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market are quantitatively also subjectively valued to think about the Global just as regional market equally. This market study presents basic data and true figures about the market giving a general assessable analysis of this market based on market trends, market drivers, constraints and its future prospects. The report supplies the worldwide monetary challenge with the help of Porter’s Five Forces Analysis and SWOT Analysis.

On the basis of report- titled segments and sub-segment of the market are highlighted below:
Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market By Application/End-User (Value and Volume from 2019 to 2025) : Large Enterprises & Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)

Market By Type (Value and Volume from 2019 to 2025) : , Cloud-Based & On-Premise

Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market by Key Players: ZeroFOX, Comodo, Domain.com, GoDaddy, Register.com, Leaseweb, Namecheap, SiteLock, Verisign, Sucuri, Cloudflare, Pointer Brand Protection, Sasahost, WebARX, AppRiver, Rebel.com

Geographically, this report is segmented into some key Regions, with manufacture, depletion, revenue (million USD), and market share and growth rate of Web & Domain Protection Software in these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), covering China, USA, Europe, Japan, Korea, India, Southeast Asia & South America and its Share (%) and CAGR for the forecasted period 2019 to 2025.

Informational Takeaways from the Market Study: The report Web & Domain Protection Software matches the completely examined and evaluated data of the noticeable companies and their situation in the market by plans for different clear tools. The measured tools including SWOT analysis, Porter’s five powers analysis, and assumption return debt were utilized while separating the improvement of the key players performing in the market.

Key Development’s in the Market: This segment of the Web & Domain Protection Software report fuses the major developments of the market that contains confirmations, composed endeavors, R&D, new thing dispatch, joint endeavours, and relationship of driving members working in the market.

To get this report buy full copy @: https://www.htfmarketreport.com/buy-now?format=1&report=1585651

Some of the important question for stakeholders and business professional for expanding their position in the Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market :
Q 1. Which Region offers the most rewarding open doors for the market in 2019?
Q 2. What are the business threats and variable scenario concerning the market?
Q 3. What are probably the most encouraging, high-development scenarios for Web & Domain Protection Software movement showcase by applications, types and regions?
Q 4.What segments grab most noteworthy attention in Web & Domain Protection Software Market in 2019 and beyond?
Q 5. Who are the significant players confronting and developing in Web & Domain Protection Software Market?

For More Information Read Table of Content @: https://www.htfmarketreport.com/reports/1585651-global-web-domain-protection-software-market

Key poles of the TOC:
Chapter 1 Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market Business Overview
Chapter 2 Major Breakdown by Type [, Cloud-Based & On-Premise]
Chapter 3 Major Application Wise Breakdown (Revenue & Volume)
Chapter 4 Manufacture Market Breakdown
Chapter 5 Sales & Estimates Market Study
Chapter 6 Key Manufacturers Production and Sales Market Comparison Breakdown
…………………..
Chapter 8 Manufacturers, Deals and Closings Market Evaluation & Aggressiveness
Chapter 9 Key Companies Breakdown by Overall Market Size & Revenue by Type
………………..
Chapter 11 Business / Industry Chain (Value & Supply Chain Analysis)
Chapter 12 Conclusions & Appendix

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like North America, Europe or Asia.

BY SYLVIA SANCHEZ

Continue Reading

Politics

Social networks have been weaponized for the impeachment hearings

Published

on

By

facebook, instagram whatsapp also affected

Impeachment hearings got underway in the House of Representatives this week, as you likely noticed from the wall-to-wall coverage. The process involves the sort of high-stakes, highly partisan events that naturally dominate social feeds. What television was to impeachment in the 1970s and 1990s, Facebook and Twitter — and YouTube and maybe TikTok — will be to impeachment in 2019.

The hearings on President Donald Trump’s apparent attempted bribery of Ukraine won’t be the first time a president has had to contend with, or benefit from, a hyper-partisan media. Conservative talk radio and Fox News were in full swing when Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, even if their rhetoric looks quaint by today’s standard. But the World Wide Web was in its infancy, and the world was then still innocent of algorithmically sorted news feeds, partisan bot armies, and state-sponsored meme warfare.

Not anymore. If the first day of hearings is any indication, social networks promise to play a powerful role in shaping the way that impeachment hearings are understood by Americans. They are also playing a powerful role in shaping the hearings themselves.

As Ryan Broderick documented at BuzzFeed, Republican lawmakers used their time during Wednesday’s hearing to promote discredited conspiracy theories that are popular on right-wing message boards:

There is one America that believes what was in former FBI director Robert Mueller’s report, that there was coordinated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which helped the Trump campaign. But there is a second America that believes that in the summer of 2016, the Democratic National Committee colluded with Ukrainian nationals to frame the Trump campaign for collusion with Russia, implicating a Ukrainian American DNC contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, in the collusion and the California-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in the subsequent cover-up.

This unfounded theory has been propped up by a 2017 Politico story; reporting from right-wing political commentator John Solomon published earlier this year in the Hill; Attorney General Bill Barr’s summer travels; the yearlong personal investigation into Ukraine conducted by Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer working for Trump; and coverage from Fox News and conservative news sites. All of that came into play during Wednesday’s hearing, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly.

After Republican members of Congress promoted these various smokescreens, right-wing media universally dismissed the hearing — either as an absurd exercise led by clowns, or as an outrageous abuse of power. Brian Stelter described the atmosphere on cable news:

Here’s what else I heard: Wednesday’s hearing was a bust. It was all just hearsay. It was a “disaster” for the Democrats and a “great day” for the Republicans. Impeachment is “stupid.” Impeachment is “fake.” There’s nothing impeachable here. There’s no reason to hold hearings. This inquiry needs to stop right now.

The message was one-sided and overwhelming. Every host and practically every guest said the Republican tribe is winning and the Democrat tribe is losing. I’m sure the president loved watching every minute of it. That’s one of the reasons why this right-wing rhetoric matters so much — because it is reassuring and emboldening Trump.

Meanwhile, if you’re reading the New York Times or watching CNN, you’re getting the sense that the case against Trump is a slam dunk, with multiple people having heard the president directly pressure his ambassador to the European Union to pursue a bribery plot. As Ezra Klein wrote recently, this impeachment is “the easiest possible test case for can our system hold a president accountable.” And yet with something like 40 percent of the country living in an alternate media universe, the basic, actual facts of the case may never penetrate into their reality.

Of course, that fear was one of the best reasons for Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings in the first place: Show people real witnesses answering important questions over a long enough period of time — train everyone’s eyes on the same set of facts — and maybe a greater consensus will emerge.

Time will tell if they succeed. In the meantime, impeachment has proven to be big business on Facebook — where politicians are taking out highly partisan ads consistent with their respective worldviews. Emily Stewart and Rani Molla have a thorough walkthrough of how impeachment is playing out on Facebook, with Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren using ads to fire up their base and build their donor rolls; Tom Steyer using impeachment as a signature issue to promote his presidential candidacy; and a spice company buying tens of thousands of dollars worth of pro-impeachment advertising because they spread farther on Facebook than non-impeachment ads, resulting in a better return on investment.

Much of the debate about whether Facebook should allow political advertising noted that it represents a small fraction of the company’s business. But as the Vox writers note, that doesn’t mean it’s an insignificant business:

Facebook itself has grown into a formidable political platform in recent years, with campaigns and outside groups spending $284 million on the platform during the midterm elections, according to a report by Tech for Campaigns, a nonprofit that helps political campaigns with digital tools. While that’s just a small share of Facebook’s overall ad revenue, it’s a growing chunk of what campaigns are spending to reach constituents.

As impeachment hearings intensify, it seems likely politicians’ spending on Facebook ads will increase. And a good number of those ads, like so much about impeachment in 2019, will seem to have been created in a parallel world. In many ways, they were.

 

 

read more theverge.com

By Casey Newton

Continue Reading

Trending

TransportationVoice