> In 2010, I laid out an argument against quantum computing as a field based on the fact that no observable progress has taken place. I'm a physicist by traini

> In 2010, I laid out an argument against quantum computing as a field based on the fact that no observable progress has taken place. I'm a physicist by training and a quant by profession - from what I can gather, not unlike the author. Without judging the merits of quantum computing I will just notice that arguments like "has no merit because it has made no progress" are backwards-looking. You're not assessing anything from first principles, you're just saying that nothing has happened _yet_. In finance this reminds me of trend followers. Yes, you can make money by following the trend, but you're the last crowd to jump on the opportunity, right behind the guys who were looking ahead instead of back. That said, such people also provide a nice balance against "we don't know everything therefore anything is possible" crackpots.