Mediaboss Marketing

In February the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, held a gala reception at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing to announce a momentous accomplishment: the elimination of extreme rural poverty in China. The grand eventin an enormous ballroom with hundreds of dignitaries flown in from around the countrywas carefully timed to kick off a year of celebrations to mark the Chinese Communist Partys founding one hundred years ago. A country that many people once saw as synonymous with poverty had achieved the unattainable, Xi declared, creating a miracle that will go down in history.

Evoking history was more than self-congratulatory. For a party that aims to guide China toward domination of the futureespecially in crucial industries such as electric vehicles, renewable energy, and artificial intelligencethe first priority is controlling the past. In its telling, history brought it to power and, because it rules so well by doing things like eliminating poverty, history has decided to keep it there. For the Chinese Communist Party, history is legitimacy.

But just to make sure that history really appears to be on its side, the party spends an inordinate amount of time writing and rewriting it and preventing others from wielding their pens. Few Chinese leaders have done so with as much verve as Xi, who launched his reign in 2012 by making a major speech at an exhibition on Chinese history. Since then, he has waged war on historical nihilismin other words, those who want to criticize the partys missteps. Xi has many goals, such as battling corruption, fostering innovation, and projecting power abroad through his Belt and Road Initiative, but controlling history underlies them all.

This belief in the power of history is one of the few constants in the CCPs hundred-year saga. Though based on one creed, its ideology has actually been a blunderbuss of strategies: it started as a group of orthodox Marxists who looked to the industrial proletariat to lead the revolution, lurched to a rural-based party that tried to foment a peasant rebellion, morphed into a ruling party dominated by a personality cult built around Mao Zedong, transformed itself into an authoritarian technocracy, and now presents itself as in charge of a budding superpower dominated by a strong, charismatic leader.

These stages are united by three interlocking ideas. One has been held by many Chinese patriots since the nineteenth century: that modernizing China means making it wealthy and powerful rather than free and democratic.1 Another, also shared by Chinese patriots, is that only a strong state can achieve this. And finally, that history anointed the Communist Party to achieve these utilitarian goals.

The Chinese Communist Partys centenary coincides with unprecedented interest in how the country is ruled. After it took power in 1949, the CCP was seen by many as a Soviet Union copycat. In the 1960s, when ties between Beijing and Moscow unraveled, Western countries began to see China as an ally against the Soviets. When the party adopted capitalist-style economic policies in the late 1970s, China became a land of economic fantasies. Pathbreaking efforts to explain its governing structures remained mostly limited to a narrow field of Sinologists, investors, and activists.

That has changed over the past decade with Chinas emergence as a nascent superpower. An early example of this popular interest in how China is run was Richard McGregors The Party: The Secret World of Chinas Communist Rulers, which gave an overview of the CCPs widespread influence on Chinese society.2 McGregors book was an important corrective to the dominant storytold by many foreign journalists, think tankers, businesspeople, and government officialsthat China was becoming more and more like the West by adopting the Wests own mystical forces: the marketplace and the Internet. McGregor countered this naivet, showing how the CCP dominated not only politics but also academia, nongovernmental organizations, and the economy. In particular, its control of economic life has resulted in a hybrid capitalist state system rather than the neoliberal one imagined by many. Even private companies ultimately answer to the party: last year, for example, the government quashed the stock market listing of Jack Mas Ant Group, in part because Ma was seen as too outspoken.

When McGregor wrote his book, the CCP had 78 million membersnearly the population of Germanybut it now has roughly 92 million. While large in absolute terms, it is still only 7 percent of Chinas population, allowing it to control politics, economics, and society without losing its exclusivity. Anyone can apply to join, but applicants are carefully vetted and huge numbers are rejected. That makes it similar to the Soviet Unions narrowly based Communist Party, and indeed the Chinese founders modeled it on the Soviets Leninist system, making it hierarchical, disciplined, and mission-focused. But while the Soviet Communists lost power and were banned in 1991, the Chinese Communists have thrived by doing something rarely associated with an authoritarian system: adapting.

Marxism is not inherently adaptive, instead relying on historical determinism to analyze social development and chart a political path. Change was supposed to come via the industrial proletariat, which would realize it was being exploited, revolt, and set society on the road to communism. But by the 1930s Chinas Communist Party had found that this template didnt apply to a country with few industrial workers. Hounded by the armies of the ruling Kuomintang government and on the verge of extinction, the CCP began to improvise.

After much internal struggle, party leaders sided with Mao in acknowledging that the CCP had to be rural-based. They also forged alliances with non-Communist groups, such as religious believers, landowners, middle-class entrepreneurs, and freethinking writers. Once the party consolidated power, it was most successful when it applied the same flexibility in ruling China, such as adopting market-style economic policies and allowing nonparty members a greater say in public life.

In From Rebel to Ruler, his new history of the CCP, Tony Saich of the Harvard Kennedy School argues that the party also owes its survival to two much more hard-edged institutions: its organization and propaganda departments. The first keeps detailed dossiers on all members, allowing it to vet them for reliability and weed out those who dont follow what the party euphemistically calls correct behavior. And by tightly controlling who serves where and for how long, it prevents local leaders from building up fiefdoms that might foster bad governance or even challenge central control.

The CCP also keeps its millions in line through propaganda and indoctrination. It has more than three thousand party schools across the country. At times, foreign observers have written mirthful stories about how Milton Friedman was being taught at this or that party school, or made it seem as if one of them was Chinas version of the Kennedy School. There is some truth to these accountsmarket economics are taught, as are skills needed to be an effective civil servant. But the schools underlying goal is to make sure that party members know the priorities of whatever leader holds power.

As a longtime observer of the CCPhe first went to China in 1977 as a student from Holland and has returned regularly ever sinceSaich is able to give a sweeping and cogent history of it. Some of the book might be too detailed for general readers, but the introduction and conclusion are highly readable, summarizing major themes of the partys history. One is a belief in its infallibility, which partly stems from its improbable history. It was founded in Shanghai by a group of thirteen young Chinese men inspired by the Russian Revolution; Saich writes that the outcome

set in motion a movement that would create the most powerful political organization in the world, overseeing an economy that would come to rival that of the United States. It is an extraordinary story of survival, disaster, and resurrection. Given the conditions under which the movement labored, the CCP should never have come to power.

Saich gives a memorable account of a fellow Dutchman, Henk Sneevliet, who in 1921 was sent by Moscow to liaise with Chinese Communists. Sneevliet was present at the CCPs first meeting and was singularly unimpressed by themso much so that he advised against forming a full-fledged party. Instead, he argued that progressives should first pursue broader goals and link up with potential allies as a way to avoid destruction.

Over time, however, the CCPs real challenge turned out to be less institutional than ideational: if the party is so great, why is its history littered with so many failures, such as policies that caused the worlds deadliest recorded famine, or purges and social experiments that wiped out millions of opponentswith almost no one held accountable? How could history have legitimized an organization with this patchy record?

Party leaders developed two tactics to make history appear to be on their side. One is to blame foreigners, a storyline that plays well in a country whose official national history is of foreigners humiliating it in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Today, foreigners (often simplified as the West) are blamed for stoking tensions with Taiwan, encouraging opposition in Hong Kong, uncovering reeducation camps in Xinjiang, and trying to undermine CCP control by supporting nongovernmental organizations, academic exchanges, and other forms of peaceful evolution.

The other way the CCP explains problems is to blame members for following the wrong policies, even if at the time they were the partys official position. Hence when Mao died and his policies were overthrown, a group of leaders known as the Gang of Four was scapegoated and its followers purged, even though all were following Maos ideas.

This whipsawing doesnt encourage the sort of inner-party democracy that is supposed to prevail. In theory, members are allowed to say what they want inside the party as long as they accept final decisions and loyally carry them out. In practice, the ever-shifting correct line means that its best to keep ones mouth shut for fear that a statement that seems innocent now will become compromising later. This was especially true in the Mao era, when political rivals were purged and killed. But even in modern times, leaders who once were in favor are now sidelined or even jailedfor example, the onetime contender for the top position in China, Bo Xilai. As Saich notes, the concept of struggle permeates the partys language and actions:

This heritage created an especially violent language that was combined with the inability to accept criticism of the core concepts. Harsh rhetoric and even violence were deemed acceptable when dealing with criticsnot only those who attacked the party from without but also often critics from within. The concept of loyal opposition was rejected.

Hence the partys history has been especially tumultuous, with really only one peaceful transfer of powerfrom Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao in 2002. All others have been accompanied by purges and show trials, including Bos dismissal from all his posts and expulsion from the party on the eve of Xis elevation in 2012.

But as Bruce J. Dickson writes in The Party and the People, assuming that the CCP rules mainly through fear is a lazy way of understanding China. The adaptability that the party used to make broad shifts in policy also helps explain how it rules on a daily basis. Leaders are often hypercautious and fail to anticipate problems, but once they decide to react, they do so quickly and bring huge resources to bear.

One example that Dickson cites to good effect is the Covid-19 crisis. As is now well known, local authorities tried to cover up what seemed like a minor health crisis in Wuhan, but when it blew up, central party leaders came down hard. Local officials were switched out and the government launched a blanket shutdown of the region, and later of large swaths of the country. It mobilized doctors and nurses from all across China, built pop-up hospitals, and sent in the military. Within a few months, the CCP had Covid-19 largely under control.

As Dickson notes, the partys adaptability and responsiveness is conventional wisdom in serious China-watching circles.3 Its just that this sort of nuanced understanding doesnt fit the dominant view today of China as a strategic threat that rules through brute force or big data. These caricatures are especially convincing from afar, which increasingly is how journalism and analysis are carried out. But they do little to explain how China has risen so quickly and why there is so little opposition to the party inside the country.

Dicksons book gives a useful overview of the various bodies that run China and the partys involvement in them. He also surveys a series of important questions, such as why the CCP doesnt like civil society or religious groups. He is especially strong on the issue of nationalism, which many foreign observers assert is growing in China, especially among young people. Dickson gives a sure-footed assessment of public opinion data to show that this is not the case, and that young people are in fact less nationalistic than their parents generation.

As to why so little opposition exists in China, Dickson doesnt dispute that this is partly the result of public securityopponents are rounded up and frequently given draconian jail sentences. But at least as important is the fact thataccording to surveys and anecdotal evidencea huge proportion of the Chinese people appear to be fairly satisfied with how the CCP runs their country. Many critics might wish this werent so, Dickson writes, but then how to explain why dissidents have so little following? China has no one like Andrei Sakharov or Aleksandr Solzhenitsynopposition figures who commanded widespread respect among the population.

In a chapter asking the eternal question Will China Become Democratic? Dickson analyzes how most Chinese understand the term. Surveys show that few define democracyminzhu in Chineseas meaning elections, the rule of law, political freedom, and equal rights. Instead, most see it in terms of outcomes, especially ruling in the peoples interest. That is minzhu, and that is what they favor.

This doesnt mean that Chinese people are passivemany do protest when they feel they are being treated unfairly. But, Dickson writes, as long as incomes continue to rise, higher education is more accessible, health care more available and affordable, air more breathable, and so on, they are not likely to demand competitive elections, a multiparty system, rule of law, free speech, and other institutional features of democracy. The difference in how democracy and good governance are understood helps explain why many outsiders see the CCP as repressive and authoritarian, while most Chinese have come to see it as relatively responsive and capable.

Over its long history, the CCP has had strategies other than adaptive authoritarianism, as Timothy Cheek, Klaus Mhlhahn, and Hans van der Ven demonstrate in another book published to coincide with the partys centenary, The Chinese Communist Party: A Century in Ten Lives. These poignant biographies include a liberal infamously purged by Mao in the 1940s, the wife of a deposed party secretary, an upright Communist who retreated to a hermit-like existence after the 1989 Tiananmen uprising, and a 1940s movie actress who was later purged. According to the editors, these lives show that the party also encompassed a liberal, cosmopolitan strand that at times was central:

Its proponents believed that China needed change and that the Party was necessary to achieve it. But they also were committed to intellectual and moral autonomy, the right to criticize the Party, and the decentralization of power.

The person who best fits this description is not profiled in this volume but hovers over all these books like a patron saint: Gao Hua, a historian at Nanjing University who died of liver cancer in 2011 at the age of fifty-seven. Gao grew up during the Cultural Revolution and witnessed the violence that Mao unleashed, much of it announced in handwritten posters that were plastered along the streets of his hometown. Many of them made reference to a purge in the 1940s that was aimed at authors, artists, and thinkers who had traveled to a poor, mountainous region of western China to join the Communists in their wartime redoubt in the small city of Yanan.

Gao was intrigued and wanted to learn more. That was difficult, because most books were banned during the Cultural Revolution. Then luck intervened. Several thousand books had been locked up in a warehouse near his home, and the kindly gentleman in charge let Gao and one of his friends borrow some. Gao read hundreds of banned books, including the novels of Ding Ling and the essays of Wang Shiwei, both of whom Mao had purged in Yanan twenty-five years earlier.

By the time Gao entered Nanjing University in 1978 he instinctively knew that this purge held a key to understanding the traumas that his country had gone through. He began collecting memoirs, papers, documents, and other accounts. Twenty-two years later, he published his lifes work, How the Red Sun Rose: The Origin and Development of the Yanan Rectification Movement, 193045.

The Red Sun, of course, is Mao, and the answer is that he rose through bloody purges that destroyed lives and forced obedience. In standard Communist histories, the Yanan Rectification Movement is portrayed as a great victory for the revolution, a harnessing of intellectuals to the sacred task of saving China under the guidance of the Chinese Communist Party. Many official accounts put it on a par with the May 4th Movement, a genuine outpouring of creativity and energy in 1919 that launched the most fertile period of thought in modern Chinese history. What Gao showed, however, was that Yanan was the opposite: a sterilization of Chinese intellectuals, who could avoid persecution only by becoming apparatchiks.

In a postscript to the book, Gao describes his upbringing, motivation, and research methods. He had to make do without access to official archivesfrom the start, his project was seen as too sensitive for him to be permitted to see government documents. He was regularly denied research grants, promotions, and the chance for a senior position at another university. Every book he bought and photocopy he made was financed on his puny salary. He wrote his enormous work at his kitchen table, chain-smoking and drinking tea, his reputation growing until people made pilgrimages to Nanjing to seek him out.

His early death robbed him of the chance to write his next book, which his friends say was to have focused on what happened after the Communists, remolded by Mao into a tool of his control, assumed power in 1949. But in some ways, his lifes work was finished. His book punctures what is perhaps the CCPs ur-myththat it started as a pure, clean band of idealists fighting for China. Although never published in China, Gaos book was released by the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2000 and since then has gone through twenty-two printings. Two years ago it was masterfully translated by the veteran duo Stacy Mosher and Guo Jian.

The book is dense, long, and challenging. Professional historians have a hard time accepting all of Gaos efforts to psychoanalyze Mao and his motivations. But his achievement is overwhelming, calling into question the entire Communist project. Here was a Chinese historian, working in China, challenging the party on its most sacred soil.

Gao said that his goal was to follow the admonition of the great twentieth-century historian Chen Yinke, who died of heart failure after being persecuted during the Cultural Revolution: historians should observe the ocean in a drop of water. In this, Gao succeeded. He didnt just reconstruct erased history but uncovered a pattern of how the CCP has controlled generations of novelists and poets, artists and bloggers, videographers and citizen journaliststhe entire panoply of people struggling to make themselves heard, not just in the 1940s but for as long as the party has existed. While the CCP has succeeded in silencing most of them and convincing most others that they dont need to choose their leaders, Gao exemplifies an undercurrent of freethinking that remains alive one hundred years on.

View post:
A Most Adaptable Party | by Ian Johnson - The New York Review of Books

Intel's 17-qubit quantum test chip.

Source: Intel

Stefan Thomas really could have used a quantum computer this year.

The German-born programmer and crypto trader forgot the password to unlock his digital wallet, which contains 7,002 bitcoin, now worth $265 million. Quantum computers, which will be several million times faster than traditional computers, could have easily helped him crack the code.

Though quantum computing is still very much in its infancy, governments and private-sector companies such as Microsoft and Google are working to make it a reality. Within a decade, quantum computers could be powerful enough to break the cryptographic security that protects cell phones, bank accounts, email addresses and yes bitcoin wallets.

"If you had a quantum computer today, and you were a state sponsor China, for example most probably in about eight years, you could crack wallets on the blockchain," said Fred Thiel, CEO of cryptocurrency mining specialist Marathon Digital Holdings.

This is precisely why cryptographers around the world are racing to build a quantum-resistant encryption protocol.

Right now, much of the world runs on something called asymmetric cryptography, in which individuals use a private and public key pair to access things such as email and crypto wallets.

"Every single financial institution, every login on your phone it is all based on asymmetric cryptography, which is susceptible to hacking with a quantum computer," Thiel said. Thiel is a former director of Utimaco, one of the largest cryptography companies in Europe, which has worked with Microsoft, Google and others on post-quantum encryption.

The public-private key pair lets users produce a digital signature, using their private key, which can be verified by anyone who has the corresponding public key.

In the case of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, this digital signature is called the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm, and it ensures that bitcoin can only be spent by the rightful owner.

Theoretically, someone using quantum computing could reverse-engineer your private key, forge your digital signature, and subsequently empty your bitcoin wallet.

"If I was dealing in fear-mongering ... I'd tell you that among the first types of digital signatures that will be broken by quantum computers are elliptic curves, as we use them today, for bitcoin wallets," said Thorsten Groetker, former Utimaco CTO and one of the top experts in the field of quantum computing.

"But that would happen if we do nothing," he said.

Crypto experts told CNBC they aren't all that worried about quantum hacking of bitcoin wallets for a couple of different reasons.

Castle Island Ventures founding partner Nic Carter pointed out that quantum breaks would be gradual rather than sudden.

"We would have plenty of forewarning if quantum computing was reaching the stage of maturity and sophistication at which it started to threaten our core cryptographic primitives," he said. "It wouldn't be something that happens overnight."

There is also the fact that the community knows that it is coming, and researchers are already in the process of building quantum-safe cryptography.

"The National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) has been working on a new standard for encryption for the future that's quantum-proof," said Thiel.

NIST is running that selection process now, picking the best candidates and standardizing them.

"It's a technical problem, and there's a technical solution for it," said Groetker. "There are new and secure algorithms for digital signatures. ... You will have years of time to migrate your funds from one account to another."

Groetker said he expects the first standard quantum-safe crypto algorithm by 2024, which is still, as he put it, well before we'd see a quantum computer capable of breaking bitcoin's cryptography.

Once a newly standardized post-quantum secure cryptography is built, Groetker said, the process of mass migration will begin. "Everyone who owns bitcoin or ethereum will transfer [their] funds from the digital identity that is secured with the old type of key, to a new wallet, or new account, that's secured with a new type of key, which is going to be secure," he said.

However, this kind of upgrade in security requires users to be proactive. In some scenarios, where fiat money accounts are centralized through a bank, this process may be easier than requiring a decentralized network of crypto holders to update their systems individually.

"Not everybody, regardless of how long it takes, will move their funds in time," said Groetker. Inevitably, there will be users who forget their password or perhaps passed away without sharing their key.

"There will be a number of wallets ... that become increasingly insecure, because they're using weaker keys."

But there are ways to deal with this kind of failing in security upgrade. For example, an organization could lock down all accounts still using the old type of cryptography and give owners some way to access it. The trade-off here would be the loss of anonymity when users go to reclaim their balance.

Continued here:
Hacking bitcoin wallets with quantum computers could happen but cryptographers are racing to build a workaround - CNBC

Image credit: Russell Huffman

By Ryan F. Mandelbaum and Olivia Lanes

What is Quantum Computing? Most of this blogs readers are already excited about this technology after all, weve spent many hours reading textbooks and documentation trying to figure out how to write programs for real quantum chips. But many of our friends, family members, and people we randomly encounter still scratch their heads when they hear the words quantum and computer put together. We think its high time that they learn about quantum computing, too.

Partially inspired by Talia Gershons awesome WIRED video where she explains quantum computing at five different difficulty levels, we came up with some stock quantum computing explanations you can use to start spreading your excitement for quantum computing to other people in your life (or, if youre new here, use to understand quantum yourself). While were excited about this technology, we tried our best to sidestep the hype; quantum computers are exciting enough on their own, and theres no need to exaggerate how far along they are, what they can do today, or what we hope theyll do in the future.

But, no matter who youre trying to explain quantum to, theres a core understanding we think everyone should have. A quantum computer is similar to a classical computer in a lot of ways. Just like a classical computer, you store information using some physical system. You have to initialize that system, then perform some sort of operations on it (in other words, run a program), and then extract the information. It differs from classical computing in two key elements, however:

These core counterintuitive ideas underlie the fundamental operations of quantum computing. Once you understand these two pieces, the rest is a matter of how deep youd like to learn, and how quantum algorithms might provide benefits to you, your life, or the industry you work in. You should also get started using Qiskit.

Each of these explanations are based mainly on our experiences and opinions, and you might have your own tricks to help get quantum computing across feel free to tell us about them, what worked, and what didnt in the comments!

Some problems are really hard for todays computers to tackle, like designing drugs, running machine learning algorithms, and solving certain kinds of math equations. But the ability to solve those problems could help humankind tackle some of its biggest challenges. Well, quantum computers represent a new kind of computing system under development today that solves problems using an architecture that follows the most fundamental laws of nature and we hope theyll one day be able to to solve these hard problems. You can even try them out for yourself.

Hey, you know what a computer is but do you know how it works? Well basically, it thinks of everything, the YouTube videos you watch, the letters on the screen, everything, in a special kind of code. Programs and apps are basically just instructions that change the code around, leading to the results you see on the screen. But theres only so many different kinds of things that a regular computer can do with that code. A quantum computer works similarly to a regular computer, but its code looks a little different, and it can do even more things to those codes than your parents computers can. Quantum computers are really new, so theyre not better than a regular computer juuust yet but we think that one day they might be able to solve some of the biggest challenges in the world. Maybe it will even help you do your homework faster or something.

What do I do for work? Well *cracks knuckles*

So, there are some problems that people would like to solve that take even the best supercomputers a ridiculously long amount of time to run problems like simulating chemistry or breaking big numbers into smaller factors. Quantum computers might be able to tackle these problems by relying on a different set of physical laws than your computer does. Your computer is really just lots of electrical switches, called bits, that represents everything using binary code. In other words, the language your computer speaks encodes everything as long strings of 0s or 1s, while programs are mathematical operations that can change zeros to ones and vice versa. However, at even at the most fundamental level, a quantum computers code and its corresponding hardware looks differently. Quantum bits, or qubits, dont have to be binary during the calculation; they can actually exist in well-defined combinations of 0 and 1.

Its kind of like, if I was a qubit, instead of having mashed potatoes OR asparagus, I can have a third of a helping of mashed potatoes and two thirds of a helping of asparagus so long as it adds up to a whole side dish. However, once the problem ends, the quantum computers can only give answers in binary code, with some probability determining the outcome. Its like, if someone wanted to know which side dish I had, they check by closing their eyes, shoving their fork onto my plate, and reporting only the first side dish they taste, with the probabilities determined by how much of each side I had on my plate when they went in for a bite. Qubits also interact differently from regular bits. Lets say that Olivia and Ryan are both at dinner, and you only know that between them theyve eaten a helping of potatoes and a helping of asparagus, and not whose dish has what sides on it. But even if they havent spoken since dinner started, if you did the same eyes-closed fork jab you did on my plate, the sides they picked will be more correlated than the usual rules of random guessing would allow.

A direct consequence of this quantum dinner behavior is that there exist different types of algorithms for quantum computers. In fact, due to the quantum nature of the processor, scientists have already shown that at least theoretically, some quantum algorithms can be run exponentially faster than their classical counterparts. Provided that we can build the hardware, all these sorts of near-impossible problems may one day have solutions within arms reach. Anyway, thats what I do at work. Can you pass the gravy?

Editor Note: While thankfully we havent encountered a large contingency of quantum computing conspiracies, hype and tabloid coverage has led to some worrying interpretations of what quantum can and cant do some indeed bordering on conspiracy-minded thinking. But according to at least one expert, the best way to speak with conspiracy theorists isnt with facts but with empathy.

Oh, youre worried about quantum computers? Whys that? I was actually really interested in learning more about them, too, and I didnt understand them at first. What have you learned so far? Huh, thats interesting. So far, Ive learned that some research labs are working on a new kind of computer that can solve certain problems that classical computers cant. I was definitely really interested in the science behind it. See, theyre more or less just computer processors that rely on a system of bits to solve problems. However, these quantum bits can perform a richer set of mathematical operations than classical bits, which makes them better at solving certain problems. What did you read that they could do? Portals and new dimensions, huh? Thats really interesting, but no, I did some research on my own and what the media doesnt want you to know is that these computers are more business-y than science fiction-y they might one day be revolutionary for chemistry, machine learning, and other topics. But the media also doesnt want you to know that these computers are still really early in their development like, they forget their information quickly and theres a lot of work to do before theyre something to worry about. There are actually services that let you try them out and program them on your own. Now tell me more about the UFO you saw

Quantum computers are a new kind of computer processor that one day might augment your current computing resources to tackle certain challenges difficult for todays classical computers alone. Quantum processors work in tandem with classical computers as part of a cloud-based computing workflow, providing value by performing mathematical operations challenging for classical processors. While theres no device capable of executing a killer app yet, research has demonstrated that the enhanced capabilities of quantum systems could accelerate the research and development process, and provide value to certain industries in the coming years chemical and materials design, drug development, finance, and machine learning, for example. In one report, Boston Consulting Group predicted that productivity gains by end users of quantum computing, both in cost savings and revenue generation opportunities, could equal $450 billion or more annually. Many Fortune-500 companies have already begun to research and develop domain-specific thought leadership in quantum computing so as to be prepared when the field matures.

Quantum processors are kind of like a GPU in the sense that theyre designed to handle specific tasks that the CPU isnt well-suited to handle. But unlike a GPU, quantum computers work using a different kind of hardware architecture, one that allows them to perform a richer array of logical operations than just Boolean logic. These hardware requirements lead to bulky systems, so todays developers hoping to exploit quantum resources run their code over the cloud, employing both classical and quantum processing power where necessary for their program.

Quantum computers are a nascent technology, so programming them today is can be a lot like writing code in assembly language, stringing individual quantum bits together into circuits using quantum logic gates. These circuits are similar to classical computers in that their programs begin by initializing the qubits into a string of zeroes and ones, then perform operations, then return an output. However, quantum gates can also produce superpositions of strings, creating well-defined combinations of bitstrings (though you can only end up with one of these bitstrings, determined by the rules of probability, at the end of the calculation). Further operations produce entanglement and interference, linking certain qubits together and changing those probability distributions such that certain bitstrings become more likely and certain bitstrings become less likely when you measure the final result.

Given how recently quantum programming languages arose, developers have organized into open source communities like Qiskit where they maintain the code used to access quantum computers. As part of that, theyre designing and implementing quantum algorithms that can run on these devices, and creating modules designed to harness the potential power of quantum computers without having to continually program individual bits kind of like building a higher-level programming language on top of the assembly language with which we access quantum computers today. You can learn more by getting started with Qiskit here!

Quantum mechanics might be confusing, but it can still be incredibly useful, even if youre not a physicist. A computer based on the laws of quantum physics might help solve problems in chemistry, machine learning, or even solving partial differential equations.

Objects following the rules of quantum mechanics can enter states called superpostions. If an objects state is in a superposition of 0 and 1, that means that the object is in a linear combination of both values simultaneously until a measurement forces the object into one state or the other, with the probability of measuring either state based on the coefficients of each state in the linear combination. These objects can also become entangled, meaning you cannot describe one object mathematically on its own; when we perform experiments on entangled particles, we find that their properties are more correlated than classical physics would otherwise allow. We use these principles to construct sets of quantum bits, or qubits. I cant know each qubit value individually I can only create these linear combinations from states that include both qubits. But if I measure one qubit and force it to choose, lets say it ends up measuring 1, then the other qubit will take on a value highly correlated with the first value more correlated than random chance alone would allow. We use these ideas to generate interference, where certain combinations of qubit values become more likely and certain ones become less likely.

In a classical computer, computational spaces add together, because bits can exist in only one state or the other, 0 or 1. In a quantum computer, the computational space grows exponentially as you add more bits (2^n where n is the number of bits) so its easy to understand how they can become powerful computational tools. Furthermore, there are certain problems that are hard for classical computers to compute. Because quantum computers themselves rely on quantum physics, they are better able to simulate quantum mechanical phenomena, like chemical interactions and bonds. Though the devices are noisy and error prone today, researchers hope that quantum computers will be able to utilize the properties of entanglement and interference to run some algorithms faster than a classical computer can, making solutions to these hard problems finally feasible. Together, these benefits might one day allow scientists to perform various elements of their jobs faster.

Macroscopic quantum effects have long been observed in superconducting circuits. However, it wasnt until theoretical developments showing that flux and voltage can be quantized circuit QED that this idea was applied to quantum information processing.

A superconducting transmon qubit is essentially a quantized anharmonic oscillator. The circuits macro state can be described by the quantized energy levels; the ground state (0), the excited state (1), or even higher order excited states as well (2, 3, 4, etc.). But because the circuit is anharmonic the energy transitions between states 0 and 1 is different than 1 and 2, so we can isolate the bottom levels with a microwave pulse at that frequency to create a quantum bit for information processing.

In order to read-out and control the state of a transmon, we couple the qubit to either a 2D or 3D resonator (the physics is the same). The qubit and the resonator interact in such a way that when we probe the resonator with a standing microwave tone, the resonant frequency will actually shift depending on if the qubit is in the ground or excited state. This is how we can read out and interact with the qubits that make up a quantum computer.

Coupling these qubit-cavity systems together in an array and allowing them to talk to other another with 2-qubit gates (essentially more finely tuned microwave pulses) creates a quantum processor. Running specific gates in a specific order on this processor can create quantum algorithms. By leveraging the processors quantum properties of entanglement, superposition and interference, some quantum algorithms can theoretically be run significantly faster than their classical counterparts. Once we have reached the point where applying these algorithms has become useful and advantageous, we will have achieved what we call the era of quantum advantage.

Whispers: Hey there, pup, listen. I told my boss I would be able to teach you quantum computing, but you barely understand how your doggy door works. So heres what Im gonna do. Im gonna train you how to give me your left paw when I say initialize. Then youre gonna give me your right paw when I say X-gate. Then when I say Hadamard gate, youre going to hop on your hind legs and give me both paws. When I say CNOT, youre going to roll over, and when I say measure, youre going to bark. If you do this for me Ill cut some salami up into your dinner tonight.

Hey, Boss! Yeah! I finally figured out how to explain quantum computing to the dog! Yep, Ill write it all down in the blog post tonight. Wanna see?

Get started using Qiskit here!

Go here to see the original:
How Do You Explain Quantum Computing To Your Dog (And Other Important People in Your Life)? - Medium

LONDON, June 11, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --Arqit Limited ("Arqit"), a leader in quantum encryption technology, has today announced at the G7 Leaders Conference in Cornwall, that it has formed an international consortium of companies and government organisations to provide its quantum encryption technology to government customers in a federated system concept, called Federated Quantum System (FQS). The UK, USA, Japan, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Austria are now represented.

Arqit invented a system which uses satellites to distribute quantum keys to data centres.These keys are delivered using a new patented protocol called ARQ19, which solves the "Global versus Trustless" problem which previously prevented the adoption of Satellite Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). Arqit further invented a method, called QuantumCloud to translate the benefits of this quantum key distribution to any form of endpoint or cloud machine without the need for any special hardware. The first version of QuantumCloud launches for live service to commercial customers in 2021.

Government customers typically have more stringent requirements for control and are more inclined to buy "Private Instances" of cloud technology rather than managed services.Arqit has therefore designed a different version of its technology to meet this need and has recruited a strong community of partners from allied countries to collaborate in bringing the FQS system to use.

Collaboration partners includeBT, Sumitomo Corporation, Northrop Grumman, Leonardo, QinetiQ Space N.V., qtlabs and Honeywell. Other Western Allied countries are expected to announce their inclusion during 2021.

FQS has been developed with support from the UK Space Agency (UKSA through its National Space Innovation Programme). The system consists of dedicated satellites, control systems and QuantumCloud software. It will be provided to the UK's "Five Eyes" allied governments and other international partners, allowing sovereign protection of strategic national assets andinteroperability for joint operations.

The first FQS satellites are to be integrated and tested at the National Satellite Test Facilityin Harwell near Oxford and are expected to be launched on Virgin Orbit's LauncherOne from Newquay in Cornwall in 2023, after the launch of the first commercial Arqit satellites. The role of Virgin Orbit in providing responsive launch services for government customers from any location is additive to the plan to deploy many FQS satellites to support the needs of a growing list of allied country partners.

Arqit'sChairman and Chief Executive Officer, David Williams, said, "FQS enables collaboration between NATO-allied governments around the world to form a federated version of QuantumCloud infrastructure. It also enables the Joint All Domain Command and Control vision to come to life.The FQS system is global in its nature, and there is now strong momentum in an international consortium joining forces to bring it into use."

General Stephen Wilson, Director ofArqit Inc., said, "For Allies working together Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) is essential. For JADC2 to work, we must have a real identity, credentialing, and access management solution.Arqit's technology makes trusted data security possible."

Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, Amanda Solloway MP,added, "As a global science superpower, the UK continues to make advances in quantum science which is revolutionising cyber-security across the world. Backed by government funding, Arqit is paving the way in developing a new generation of quantum technologies that defend against sophisticated cyber-attacks on national governments, strengthening our resilience and helping us all the build back better from the pandemic."

UK Space AgencyCEO, Graham Turnock, added,"Space technologies have become embedded in almost every aspect of our daily lives, and UK Space Agency funding is accelerating our development as a world leader in space technology. Arqit's advances in quantum technologies will strengthen the UK's resilience against harmful cyber-attacks, helping us protect our critical services. The announcement today shows the attraction of Arqit's model to our partners."

Head of Spaceport Cornwall, Melissa Thorpe,added, "This is a key consortium to be involved with, placing UK companies at the forefront of cutting-edge global technologies. Arqit's products will bring high-volume international business through launch at Spaceport Cornwall with Virgin Orbit. Not only does this provide us with advancements in UK innovation, but also brings that innovation to Cornwall, supporting high-skilled jobs and economic growth."

Dan Hart, CEO ofVirgin Orbit, commented, "Recent headlines from across the world show how vital it is to have encrypted communications supporting our economy and our security. The team at Arqit has already demonstrated that its encryption capabilities provide a critical service to a global customer base. By adding a space layer with its Federated Quantum System, Arqit is taking that service to an even higher level. We're delighted to support the team, and to add its quantum satellites to our manifest for flights out of Cornwall."

Kevin Brown, Managing Directorof BT Security, said,"BT is pleased to be part of the first phase of the FQS project, which aligns with our wider commitment to providing security solutions for the most critical organisations. As this project advances to a global stage, it provides a clear example of how the UK is playing a leading role in developing important new technologies."

Eiji Ishida, Executive Officer and General Manager, Lease, Ship and Aerospace Business Division of Sumitomo Corporation,said, "The FQS concept is important because it allows us to manage a local instance of the infrastructure and deliver the control that our defence customers will require.Sumitomo Corporation is pleased to be in this consortium, which is very far ahead of other technologies."

Professor Rupert Ursin ofqtlabs said, "Austria has been a strong supporter of the Satellite QKD technology which we have helped Arqit to build, and I am pleased that qtlabs is able to continue to represent Austria in this consortium and will try to bring the benefits of FQS to the Austrian and other government users."

Marina Mississian, Senior Director Space Payloads forHoneywell Aerospace, Canadaadded, "Satellite enabled quantum encryption is strategically important for Honeywell and Canada. With the support of the Canadian government, we have been pleased to be associated with Arqit's commercial mission and now to join the FQS system, which will further the collective security goals of the 'Five Eyes' community of nations."

Frank Preud'homme, Sales and Business Development Director forQinetiQ Belgium, said, "We have been pleased to support the Arqit space mission since 2017 and see strong potential for the creation of sovereign capabilities for a close alliance of allied countries in sharing this technology."

Norman Bone, Chair and Managing Director, Leonardo UK,concluded, "Leonardo and Telespazio recognise the increasingly digital nature of UK and allied national defence and security and the expectations of our customers that their systems are secure and resilient. The rapid, collaborative evaluation of new and cutting-edge technologies such as those developed by Arqit are a key element of Leonardo's strategy to establish and deliver next generation systems to our customers enabling effective and secure multi-domain operations including in the cyber and space domains."

The fundamental science behind Arqit's solutions to decades-old problems with Satellite QKD is important, but the company's ability to translate that into usable products that meet very precisely the needs of users is very advanced.This is a major advantage in moving quickly to implement the security technology amongst allied nations that will deliver valuable security improvements immediately and underpin the future of the quantum battlespace.

About Arqit Limited:

Arqit has invented a unique quantum encryption technology which makes the communications links of any networked device secure against current and future forms of hacking even an attack from a quantum computer. Arqit's product, called QuantumCloud, creates unbreakable software encryption keys, using satellite to deliver quantum information to data centres.The keys which are easy and efficient to use remotely with no hardware or disruption to software required. The software has universal application to every edge device and cloud machine in the world. Headquartered in the United Kingdom with subsidiaries in the United States, Arqit was founded in 2017 by UK satellite industry veteran David Williams. Visit us at http://www.arqit.uk.

SOURCE Arqit

https://arqit.uk

Excerpt from:
International partners and Government agencies join Arqit's Federated Quantum System - PRNewswire

How do we know were not living in a simulation like the Matrix? Jack Freedom, Bristol

Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.

Isnt this just the kind of article our biomechanical overlords would simulate in order to keep us compliant in our pods? kingsize

I took the red pill and nothing materially changed other than a rash that I had had for a week or so cleared up. OfficerKrupke

Not ruling it out, but if we were living in software, it is the most reliable software ever because there never seem to be any disruptive updates. Liam Collins

The idea that we may be living in a matrix-like universe is called the simulation theory, and was first proposed by Nick Bostrom. It argues that human technology is advancing at such a rate that in the future we will have the ability to simulate entire universes filled with details as rich and beautifully complex as our own. These simulated universes would also contain beings that were genuinely conscious as a result of the advanced ability of the simulation, and so would be able to think and would be self-aware in the same way that we can and do. These beings could be indistinguishable from us in terms of the depth of their minds, the only difference being that their life springs from circuit boards and artificial design rather than the real world which has given life to us. These beings then being no less able or imaginative than us would progress to a point of technological advancement at which they could create and run their own simulations. The simulated minds they create may do likewise, and so there could be simulations inside of simulations. There could be billions of universes therefore being simulated in a chain with only one base reality (the real world) at the start. That being the case, it looks far more likely that any one individual would be living in a simulated universe, rather than the real one. Once we acknowledge this possibility, we have to then consider that these odds apply to us as well, and so according to the theory presented we are far more likely to be living in a simulation than the real world.

One counter-argument is to consider that all of these simulations have a common feature: they all have their own simulation. The only universes that might not are the most recent simulated universe as its inhabitants may not have yet developed the technology necessary to create one or base reality, if it turns out that simulated universes arent possible. That brings our odds to at least 50/50, which is preferable to the billion-to-one conclusion reached above. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning assumes that each universe can only create one simulation, which isnt necessarily the case. Each node on the chain of simulated universes could have many branches, each with a simulation on the end, bringing our probability back to a billion to one. Benjamin Dixon

What I always found interesting about Bostroms idea are the ethics that emerge from this assumption. Basically, we should treat any simulated realities with dignity and respect because if we dont we increase the likelihood that consciousnesses in higher reality than ours will mess around with us. I feel much worse about how I treated my Sims now ajukes2k

You may be interested in David Kippings paper A Bayesian Approach to the Simulation Argument. Much more maths than in Bostroms original paper, but nothing fiercer than conditional probability and Bayes theorem, plus the ability to sum a geometric series, is required. As you would expect, there is a good reference list to the literature too. FinrodFelagund

Michio Kaku has an answer to this basically because the smallest size of computer needed to run a simulation of the universe is the universe, its more logical that we are not living in a simulation. I rather like the idea, though, not least because it offers the small chance of an afterlife for the non-religious. ChestnutSlug

Not sure thats true, though. All thats needed is to run something that looks like the universe from where you (or I) sit. You might think theres an awfully big universe out there, but if you only look at it in terms of images on a screen, then all you need is enough power to colour the screen. I quite like the idea that a simulation explains quantum uncertainty: a state doesnt exist until its been observed: its uncertain because it hasnt yet been computed in the simulation No, of course I dont believe any of that. Its fun trying, though. conejo

Some make a pretty plausible case: see Rizwan Virks The Simulation Hypothesis and a recent article in Scientific American. Madeleine Bowman

In a sense we definitely are living in a simulation, since what we experience is coloured by our own subjective experience and judgment, expectations, our own programming. How we perceive reality may well not be particularly real. Equally, what we are fed, plus groupthink, societal norms and expectations, biases etc, can take us a very long way from being able to objectively perceive what is actually happening. We are a walking Matrix. Its virtually impossible to step outside your own normal and become embedded in any kind of physical reality. You only have to look at other societies around the world and how insane they look to realise that. LorLala

We are living in a simulation, but not in the way you might think. In his Republic, Plato suggests that something can be tangible and unreal, if it purports to be something it is not (as, for example, a statue does). As I look out of my window in 2021 England, I see toytown cars styled to look friendly or aggressive, driving past toytown newbuild houses designed to evoke fake nostalgia, inhabited by disoriented people who vote for toytown politicians and watch surgically enhanced bimbos on so-called reality TV. They are firmly in the Matrix, albeit a tangible Matrix, and the perennial sigh of their oppressed nature is O God, please protect me from everything that is really real. Im sorry, but you did ask. PaulSecret

The state of the current government suggests that if not a simulation we may indeed be living in some bleak dark comedy. DougieGee

There is one piece of evidence that we do indeed live in a computer simulation. Computer simulations are essentially bits of data, which is then presented to the observer, or subject in our case, as objects. The data will contain all the information necessary to present and animate the object, including physical and psychological characteristics. But if the data gets corrupted, then the representation will change unexpectedly. And if the data goes missing, or is corrupted so badly that it cannot be represented, then the object will disappear.

Which brings me to my one piece of evidence. How many of us have experienced the inexplicable disappearance of a sock? Yes, folks, odd socks are the irrefutable piece of evidence that we do live in a simulation and a sloppy one at that vishnoo

Id like to think that a simulated world would be free of pandemics, Brexits, racists, uber-capitalists, tabloid journalism, super-leagues, sausage bans, hives, bad smells, etc surely our Matrix Overlords would want to keep us feeling complacently sedate and safe, no? Unless, of course, they had a sadistic streak and a perverse sense of humour AmadanDubh

Have you never played SimCity? At least half the fun is in dealing with disasters. saganIsMyHomeboy

This is an epistemic question. Epistemology is concerned with the beliefs we hold and our justification for holding them. I think the lesson to learn from this question is that we can never be sure we know anything, and we should be constantly evaluating our beliefs and what we know in light of new experience, as it is difficult to prove we know anything. Cauvghn

Philosophers have spent an absurd amount of time attempting to answer this question. It is easy to get bogged down in the details of their numerous theories of knowledge, which typically (though not invariably) seek to establish that we do know that were not living in a simulation. But all those theories dont change a fundamental point: everything would appear to us exactly the same if we are in a (perfect) simulation and if we are not. As a result, there will always be some reason to doubt that things are as they appear. Paul Dimmock

The Middle East, The Kardashians, racism and sexism, homophobia and Trump are all human conditions that a machine could never attain the sufficient level of advanced stupidity to mimic. Jeremy Jones

We are living in a simulation that we create with our own minds. Pavlin Petkov

I believe simulation theory and our current understanding of physics are incompatible. Why?

First, if everything in the simulation is captured within one framework of true determinism, the processing power required for modelling all the trajectories of the units of the (visible) universe would in fact, due to power laws, implode our own universe even when some of these trajectories and interactions are constrained by universal rules (eg max velocity at speed of light). And yes, this applies even when the simulation is run via quantum computing (where we assume near perfect energy efficiency). In line with the mass-energy equivalence law, E=mc2, information processing = energy = mass. Then, for simulation theory to still work out, there needs to be an external source of mass/energy, far greater than the universe simulated, to supply the processing power to simulate our universe. This simulation therefore needs to physically take place in a different and far greater entity than our own visible universe. So: if simulation operates within a framework of true determinism, processing power required for that single simulation we are all in would far exceed that which is embodied by the mass of our known universe. The simulated universe would implode in on itself or requires a significant supply from an external entity entirely.

Now, if we want to look beyond this processing-power limitation in the case of true determinism, a simulation of our universe would require a significant degree of random laws dictating trajectories of the simulated agents (whatever their unit may be) and their interactions (leading to a far smaller parameter space, which relieves, to some extent, from the power laws that determinism needs to deal with). Computer science has yet to find a way for generating true randomness, but for arguments sake, lets assume this limitation has long been overcome by those superior beings running the simulation of our universe. Then still, by virtue of lack of complete determinism, no simulation would be the same; no valuable patterns can be extracted from each simulation alone. This would mean that multiple (read: infinitely many) simulations would need to be run in parallel in order to be valuable, implying that, without determinism, simulation theory would go hand in hand with infinitely many parallel universes. This again lands us at the issue of processing power required, which would be so enormous that it seems to defeat the purpose. Whatever that may be (perhaps this is the true psychological conundrum with simulation theory). Naomi Iris van den Berg

When I first watched The Matrix, I had to leave the room when it got to the point of the choice between the red pill and the blue pill, and chose to watch the microwave oven instead It was too plausible and I couldnt decide which one to take. Being a diagnosed schizophrenic probably plays a role here, but I also receive enough synchronicity and precognition to keep me guessing as to the possibility of a holographic universe. It would explain a lot. There is a theory along these lines in modern quantum physics and Ive seen the physical universe behave in some odd ways. My life remains beautifully surreal in the meantime Sam Bowen

We dont and we never will. But Occams razor applies; is it simpler/more likely to assume that everything we perceive has been designed by a third-party intelligence, expending vast amounts of energy for unknown reasons, or that the world around us is real? My money is on the latter. SRF999

Does it matter? I dont think it does. What does matter is how we respond to our perceived surroundings. Each of us has to adapt our responses in such a way that they affect our immediate environment so that we effect beneficial change. Such is intelligence. It doesnt matter by whom or why the environment was constructed. The funny thing to note is that as a whole (as opposed to us acting as individuals), we appear to be failing big style. Bristol_Fashion

Hilary Putnam posed the question: how do we know that we are not just a brain in a vat. Putnam argued that to ask the question we needed to have a causal relationship with an external world and hence we could not possibly just be brains in a vat. My own view however is that this assumes that we can peek outside the box, which I do not think we can.

We could therefore very possibly be just brains in a vat (or just living in a simulation like the Matrix). It really depends on what you are asking. Most people assume that there has to be something else either a god or external reality that contains our universe. So in effect yes we are just brains in a vat. But what is the vat?

I would suggest that language is the vat. Language is the DNA of the mind and we are living in a sea of language, which is creating the consciousness that we perceive. If you think about it, you can only pose the question that you did (Are we in a simulation?) because of language. It is language that enables that thought to be entertained and language that demands the answer. The physical, material world has no need for that question. It has all the answers it needs. It is only the human mind and the language that structures it that creates this need. soonah98

What does it matter? The objective of life is the same try to enjoy yourself while making things better for others, your loved ones and society as a whole. Simon Ellis

Here is the original post:
Readers reply: how do we know were not living in a simulation like the Matrix? - The Guardian