From Filippo's post: "Sure, papers about an abacus and a dog are funny and can make you look smart and contrarian on forums."
replyIf only we had a technology where an author could specify a unique identifier and name of another author's paper. Something that could cite a different paper and link to it.
replyIs that even a rebuttal? Seems like just a dismissal without any substance. I expect in 10 years the predictions will be wrong, kind of like Y2K all over again.
replyFrom the abstract:
reply> This paper presents implementations that match and, where possible, exceed current quantum factorisation records using a VIC-20 8-bit home computer from 1981, an abacus, and a dog.
From the link:
> Sure, papers about an abacus and a dog are funny and can make you look smart and contrarian on forums. But that’s not the job, and those arguments betray a lack of expertise[1]. As Scott Aaronson said[2]:
> > Once you understand quantum fault-tolerance, asking “so when are you going to factor 35 with Shor’s algorithm?” becomes sort of like asking the Manhattan Project physicists in 1943, “so when are you going to produce at least a small nuclear explosion?”
[1]: https://bas.westerbaan.name/notes/2026/04/02/factoring.html