4 ms·

I agree. It'd be concerning if they launched with some obscene $1 billion type financial tag with it. If or when it makes sense, they can always increase fundi

I agree. It'd be concerning if they launched with some obscene $1 billion type financial tag with it. If or when it makes sense, they can always increase funding for these three centers and or to build additional centers. Which is exactly what I'd expect in the coming years.

elliotec 6y ago
I dunno. This seems worthy of a lot more funding than a dog walking app that raised $361 million https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/wag https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/wag
- rlt 6y ago
  Fortunately I don’t think the US government invested in Wag. Not surprisingly, the bulk of that was from SoftBank’s Vision Fund: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/SoftBank2/SoftBank-suffers-another-writedown-after-Wag-stake-sale https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/SoftBank2/SoftBank-suffers-...
- adventured 6y ago
  Why is it worthy of a lot more than $361 million in initial funding? Your premise is that it'll stop at $75 million in funding. I'd bet against that premise. The US Government has a tendency to start its programs small and expand them considerably over time. Besides, the US simultaneously has several of the world's largest companies pouring resources into quantum computing (Google, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Honeywell, Lockheed, Intel, et al.). It's not as though $75 million is the extent of US investment into the space.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  That's a SoftBank valuation. Those were inflated.
godelski 6y ago
I disagree. I'd be completely find with a $1bn financial tag with it. That's not going to be $1bn for a year but spread over something like 5-10 years. If this is a strategic technology, it is highly beneficial for the government to invest in it. They'll make the money back once the technology becomes widespread. And I mean, look at the last paragraph > ... the NSF that would be given $100 billion over five years to invest in American research and technology issues, including quantum computing. Which seems low when you consider that we spent $430 bn on the F35 and lifetime expected cost is 1.5tn for more acquisition and maintenance. Governments work with larger amounts of money and when you look at science (arguably the best way to get ahead in military) it is pennies (CERN was funded internationally and only cost around $20bn over 10 years and $1bn/yr for operation). I mean the largest super computers cost only a couple hundred million, which means if Google or Facebook wanted to, they could compete.

elliotec 6y ago

I dunno. This seems worthy of a lot more funding than a dog walking app that raised $361 million https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/wag https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/wag

rlt 6y ago
Fortunately I don’t think the US government invested in Wag. Not surprisingly, the bulk of that was from SoftBank’s Vision Fund: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/SoftBank2/SoftBank-suffers-another-writedown-after-Wag-stake-sale https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/SoftBank2/SoftBank-suffers-...
adventured 6y ago
Why is it worthy of a lot more than $361 million in initial funding? Your premise is that it'll stop at $75 million in funding. I'd bet against that premise. The US Government has a tendency to start its programs small and expand them considerably over time. Besides, the US simultaneously has several of the world's largest companies pouring resources into quantum computing (Google, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Honeywell, Lockheed, Intel, et al.). It's not as though $75 million is the extent of US investment into the space.
DevKoala 6y ago
That's a SoftBank valuation. Those were inflated.

godelski 6y ago

I disagree. I'd be completely find with a $1bn financial tag with it. That's not going to be $1bn for a year but spread over something like 5-10 years. If this is a strategic technology, it is highly beneficial for the government to invest in it. They'll make the money back once the technology becomes widespread. And I mean, look at the last paragraph > ... the NSF that would be given $100 billion over five years to invest in American research and technology issues, including quantum computing. Which seems low when you consider that we spent $430 bn on the F35 and lifetime expected cost is 1.5tn for more acquisition and maintenance. Governments work with larger amounts of money and when you look at science (arguably the best way to get ahead in military) it is pennies (CERN was funded internationally and only cost around $20bn over 10 years and $1bn/yr for operation). I mean the largest super computers cost only a couple hundred million, which means if Google or Facebook wanted to, they could compete.