<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1304.4595/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1304.4595/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits — mentioned by cdibona</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5719848</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1304.4595:5719848</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 17:41:35 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s a paper that we felt answered this question: http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4595 Like you, I was worried about the snake oil aspects of qc, but ...well, I got over it when I looked into the science of the d-wave implementation and talked with folks like Sergio. Please note,we&amp;#x27;re talking about a quantum annealer here, not a full on qc and we&amp;#x27;re okay with that :-) Also, disclaimer: I&amp;#x27;m a googler who worked with our quantum folks and nasa to get the machine in place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1304.4595/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
