31–40 of 54 posts
I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
Also, you're way overestimating how much a layman knows about computing, quantum or otherwise.
I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
When you have half of the American candidates denying climate-change or evolution, you get excited when you see a political leader who evidently has taken the time to have a basic understanding of new and upcoming fields of study.
I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
When you have half of the American candidates denying climate-change or evolution, you get excited when you see a political leader who evidently has taken the time to have a basic understanding of new and upcoming fields of study.
"A regular computer bit is either a one or a zero, either on or off. A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."
To be sure, there are statements in there that are correct, but they don't connect up to a coherent description of the science behind QC. In short: I see words, I do not see understanding.
What is distressing or embarrassing though is the scientist who blatantly kowtows to Trudeau:
“I was very impressed he made an attempt,” said Dr. Lucien Hardy. “He got it spot on.”
No. He didn't get it "spot on". But I suppose if the prime minister is spearheading an initiative to fund you you'd better not embarrass him. But that sort of political play is not how you're supposed to do things in science.
I think that ideally politicians should be working at a high level of abstraction (like any manager/executive in any field, especially technical). This means having a high level, big picture understanding of a field and the major benefits and hurdles to overcome.
Having a deep understanding of one area like this would make people in that field happy maybe, but it would not necessarily make him better at making big policy decisions and balancing the needs of the quantum computing industry with the other industries and the needs of the country.
The problem is that politicians generally tend to only be good at one thing: politics. A good leader would strive to understand at a high level all of the topics that involve policy decisions, with the intelligence to dive deeper if need be or be able to understand and verify the advice of an expert in that field and make educated decisions. This is usually not the case, but when it is we shouldn't deride someone for only having a topical knowledge of our own fields.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you have half of the American candidates denying climate-change or evolution, you get excited when you see a political leader who evidently has taken the time to have a basic understanding of new and upcoming fields of study.
And Bernie Sanders being in favor of labeling GMOs.
I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
He went around the perimeter institute building in Waterloo Ontario in Canada and spent some time learning the basics and trying to understand the work that they do there. He did understand the basic ideas that he was saying, it wasn't just a script and he was active and engaged learning throughout the day. Obviously he won't understand very much detail about it, but he doesn't need to. He is a prime minister, not wo…
"A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."
I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
Whether or not Trudeau's knowledge of the topic goes any deeper than what he's said here, he's demonstrated that he either cares enough about the subject to have consulted with people who understand it and learned how to repeat their explanations without falling off the rails, unlike good ol' Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens for example, or that he cares about the subject enough to have learned enough about it that he can articulate an opinion in a clear and accessible way. Either way, what's impressive is not that he is repeating information which is true, but that he cares enough about quantum computing to get it right.
I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
> I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's Really? I got the impression that he didn't really get the significance of Q-bits and just thought of it as 'stores more stuff than a digital-bit; MORE GB!!!'. At the same time, I'd be surprised if a man-on-the-street interview would give anywhere near as good of an answer. > It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician h…
I am reminded of the choice of selecting Rev. Palmer Joss instead of Dr. Arroway for the mission in 'Contact' because he represents the 99% of the world who have some sort of religious faith vs one holding a scientific or skeptical view of it.
In reality it isn't so weird for a leader to know about quantum physics, like if you asked Angela Merkel I bet she will actually explain the concept. So I don't get all this hype.