3 ms·

this is gratuitously negative and against HN policies and you should not write comments like this here (especially using the word scam). a neutral phrasing migh

this is gratuitously negative and against HN policies and you should not write comments like this here (especially using the word scam). a neutral phrasing might be "I believe that the D-Wave guys do not themselves believe in their innovations, and are perpetrating what would otherwise be considered scams." Please bear in mind that Google as well as NASA have bought D-Wave computers. Whether the effect is real or not, they do not exactly transfer money to scammers, and are not easy, unsophisticated "marks" (targets of scammers.) "Hey Google, it's your cousin!" is not how these sales take place. Use of a word like scam is inappropriate, especially given that sales have been made, and the ordered equipment has been delivered and is being used. (By people who run Google and who send things to space.) Please be a bit more judicious in your phrasing.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
Have you ever been involved in an M&A meeting? You'd be surprised how often "Hey Google, it's your cousin!" kinda thing actually happens. I'm surprised by the amount of faith and assumed competence on the part of these organizations among the HN crowd. The comments I'm seeing as response I agree don't seem to be conducive to an actual discussion so I'll rephrase but the point about the intelligence and infallible decision making abilities of the large organization being used as counterclaims do not really add up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is the usual bar for claims that go above and beyond current state of the art and science. D-wave has consistently failed in that regard. I find their approach unscientific and unethical for the kinds of claims they are making for whatever technology they have sold to whatever organizations. In the long run no one wins when such tactics are used.
- logicallee 10y ago
  Oh, all I meant with my exmaples is that it should be enough for you to pause to phrase judiciously and carefully, for good discussion here. Unfortunately I think you're outside of the edit window though. the phrasing you just used (in your second, longer paragraph) is fine to me! It should have been your original phrasing (both IMO and by HN guidelines.) Thanks for following up.

dkarapetyan 10y ago

Have you ever been involved in an M&A meeting? You'd be surprised how often "Hey Google, it's your cousin!" kinda thing actually happens. I'm surprised by the amount of faith and assumed competence on the part of these organizations among the HN crowd. The comments I'm seeing as response I agree don't seem to be conducive to an actual discussion so I'll rephrase but the point about the intelligence and infallible decision making abilities of the large organization being used as counterclaims do not really add up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is the usual bar for claims that go above and beyond current state of the art and science. D-wave has consistently failed in that regard. I find their approach unscientific and unethical for the kinds of claims they are making for whatever technology they have sold to whatever organizations. In the long run no one wins when such tactics are used.

logicallee 10y ago
Oh, all I meant with my exmaples is that it should be enough for you to pause to phrase judiciously and carefully, for good discussion here. Unfortunately I think you're outside of the edit window though. the phrasing you just used (in your second, longer paragraph) is fine to me! It should have been your original phrasing (both IMO and by HN guidelines.) Thanks for following up.