196

Like what exactly? Do you understand that science is self-referential? Nobody from the quantum computing world will confirm that they're crooks and those physicists who claim that QC is a bubble are pronounced dorks.

I don't have sources, only arguments.

1. They had an audacity to announce achieving quantum supremacy a few years ago. If you read this paper carefully, you'd see that the achievement is simulation of the quantum chip itself for 200 ms.
2. Algorithms. Why the fuck one would need to crack a fucking security code? While a substantial progress in error correction has been achieved, 3 old main algorithms for real world use are still in favor: Schor, Grover and Quantum Fourier. And they are still not superior for AES256.
3. Significant changes in roadmap have been announced from a proclaimed leader of quantum computing. They have expected 1000 operational qubits by 2025, but now they want to error correct on their 84 qubits scheme (that still stimulates itself). I hope that in this decade they could use quantum computers to prove that 161 = 7 x 23, but I'm in doubt.

I'm not in anyway claiming that quantum computers should not be developed: they might have uses in material science and in metrology. I'm highlighting the predicament that we have here: if the expectations from QC were real, nobody would invest in it, but if the expectations are not real, the investments will experience a sudden drop which will stop the research for a while.