This is BS. It's really easy to shoot down a new technology in its second iteration by comparing it with the gazillionth iteration of super-duper-optimised olde

This is BS. It's really easy to shoot down a new technology in its second iteration by comparing it with the gazillionth iteration of super-duper-optimised older technology. So what if CPLEX is this and this, it's still running on a platform that has had multiple Billions of dollars poured into it to optimize and improve it. What do you think will a QC be capable of when it has had a similar investment in R&D - I beg to ask of you?? The truth is, classical computers are reaching their zenith. Those who stubbornly denounce new technologies based on such a truly horrific comparison such as what we have here are doomed to be clutching their 8 core beast of yesteryear, sulking as the part of the world that is willing to adapt and change move past them at a rapid pace. I can promise you there were many similar arguments such as this when radio technology, TV broadcasting, computer technology, and LCDs first came about. Sure, people can argue against a new technology based on the underlying fundamental principles of the technology, but saying a new technology is stupid because it's not as good (yet!) as the current technology is the worst argument in human history. Using your argument I can say that Albert Einstein is definitely the most stupid person that ever lived - because look, as a 3-year-old he was useless. The argument forgets that a three year old Einstein is a much different person than a 23-year-old Einstein. A 23-year-old quantum computer will be a much different thing than a three-year-old quantum computer!