Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rigetti Computing to go public

rigetti.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 83 posts

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#21

Post by LurkingPenguin »

cblconfederate wrote: post #4
abrichr wrote: post #3

I wonder how this squares up with https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-computing-hype-bad-sc... : > Crazy headlines abound: "quantum computing will change life as we know it," "quantum computing will solve global warming," "Quantum computing will revolutionize science and industry," etc etc. These statements are not based on any research or reality at all, they are not even wishful thinking. The number of known qua…

Quantum computing may not be all it's cracked up to be , but i 'm ok with some smart people becoming newly minted millionaires by investors with excess wealth.

> Quantum computing may not be all it's cracked up to be , but i 'm ok with some smart people becoming newly minted millionaires by investors with excess wealth.

Unfortunately, SPACs are mostly a way for those with "excess wealth" (the investor class) to leech off of mom and pops (retail investors).

The sponsors basically get interest free loans to seek out acquisitions of companies that in most cases wouldn't be public markets material and when they consummate a merger, they can walk away with millions upon millions of dollars in fees even if the SPAC performs horribly. When a SPAC performs well, their profits are almost always massively disproportionate to the money they invested and risk they took.

Fortunately in this case, even if quantum computing might not be all it's cracked up to be, Rigetti is a "full-stack" quantum computing company, so it's an amazing opportunity. /s

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#22

Post by rubyfan »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #6

Congrats to the team, well deserved! I met Chad once at a quantum computing conference in Zurich in 2011, when he was still working for IBM as a researcher. I myself finished my PhD in 2012, leaving academia to work in software. In 2013 I contacted Chad and we had a short Skype call where we talked about quantum computing, since we were both interested in doing something in the space. I don't remember why I didn't fo…

You made a set of reasonable decisions that only now seem like you missed out on something. Consider you’d have had to get in early and spend what almost a decade to get to here?

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#23

Post by [deleted] »

mmmBacon wrote: post #7
cblconfederate wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum computing may not be all it's cracked up to be , but i 'm ok with some smart people becoming newly minted millionaires by investors with excess wealth.

Hmmm isn’t that fraud? If not legal fraud it sounds ethically very dubious. Edit: I’m specifically referring to the GP comment and not the overall discussion.

[deleted]

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#24

Post by krastanov »

the_duke wrote: post #19

> Rigetti expects to scale its quantum computers from 80 qubits in 2021, to 1,000 qubits in 2024, and to 4,000 qubits in 2026. Is that realistic at all? From what I've read on the subject, everyone seems to have trouble scaling up.

Having a device with 1000 transmons does not seem too crazy to me. But I would be deeply impressed if the quality of these 1000 transmons is not lower than the quality of the current 80. And keep in mind that either way these will be "physical" qubits, not error protected logical qubits. It takes hundreds or thousands of noisy physical qubits to make reliable logical qubits (with error correcting codes).

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#25

Post by boringg »

cblconfederate wrote: post #4
abrichr wrote: post #3

I wonder how this squares up with https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-computing-hype-bad-sc... : > Crazy headlines abound: "quantum computing will change life as we know it," "quantum computing will solve global warming," "Quantum computing will revolutionize science and industry," etc etc. These statements are not based on any research or reality at all, they are not even wishful thinking. The number of known qua…

Quantum computing may not be all it's cracked up to be , but i 'm ok with some smart people becoming newly minted millionaires by investors with excess wealth.

Unfortunately i don't think you understand how a SPAC works. Retail gets burned, original investors make money through liquidity and so do the executives and whoever brought the SPAC to the market as long as the company doesn't crash and burn before 6 month lock-up.

What you are unintentionally saying is that you don't care if a bunch of smart people just made money off mom and pop (retail) investors if it turns out to be over hyped and doesn't derive value.

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#26

Post by cblconfederate »

boringg wrote: post #25
cblconfederate wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum computing may not be all it's cracked up to be , but i 'm ok with some smart people becoming newly minted millionaires by investors with excess wealth.

Unfortunately i don't think you understand how a SPAC works. Retail gets burned, original investors make money through liquidity and so do the executives and whoever brought the SPAC to the market as long as the company doesn't crash and burn before 6 month lock-up. What you are unintentionally saying is that you don't care if a bunch of smart people just made money off mom and pop (retail) investors if it turns out…

> just made money off mom and

You make it sound so bad but maybe it really IS bad. Maybe it's better that these smart people make some money, while moving the field of quantum optics somewhat further, than if some advertisers do.

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#29

Post by ak217 »

rubyfan wrote: post #22
ThePhysicist wrote: post #6

Congrats to the team, well deserved! I met Chad once at a quantum computing conference in Zurich in 2011, when he was still working for IBM as a researcher. I myself finished my PhD in 2012, leaving academia to work in software. In 2013 I contacted Chad and we had a short Skype call where we talked about quantum computing, since we were both interested in doing something in the space. I don't remember why I didn't fo…

You made a set of reasonable decisions that only now seem like you missed out on something. Consider you’d have had to get in early and spend what almost a decade to get to here?

The way I like to put it is: try to make justifiable decisions, but don't ever second-guess yourself. To me that's essential self-respect.

Re: Rigetti Computing to go public

#30

Post by boringg »

cblconfederate wrote: post #26
boringg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately i don't think you understand how a SPAC works. Retail gets burned, original investors make money through liquidity and so do the executives and whoever brought the SPAC to the market as long as the company doesn't crash and burn before 6 month lock-up. What you are unintentionally saying is that you don't care if a bunch of smart people just made money off mom and pop (retail) investors if it turns out…

> just made money off mom and You make it sound so bad but maybe it really IS bad. Maybe it's better that these smart people make some money, while moving the field of quantum optics somewhat further, than if some advertisers do.

Only reason I say it is bad is because the insider really know if this is going to perform well or not - SPACs have not traditionally done well and have left mom and pop // retail investors as the bag holders in many cases. I mean you could say what the pied piper of SPACS (Chamath Palihapitiya) said which is "do your own due diligence" but he was highly conflicted when he said that (hyping SPAC deals that have since shed significant value while make money on the initial transactions).

To be fair we still have to see how the SPACs from the last year perform over the next 5 years. My guess is that they went to the public markets when it was rich and retail investment was high though the future is unwritten.

I just wanted to correct your assertion that it was the wealthy that are paying for this, when in fact it is likely just retail investors who will hold the end result (whether good or bad).

Post reply on HN