It's good to have people pushing back against the hype, as it gets a bit out of hand. But this article is completely wrong. Rather than pointing to research tha

It's good to have people pushing back against the hype, as it gets a bit out of hand. But this article is completely wrong. Rather than pointing to research that refutes quantum error correction or the threshold theorems, he just waves his hands that there are big numbers involved and apparently continuous parameters: "In the physical world, continuous quantities (be they voltages or the parameters defining quantum-mechanical wave functions) can be neither measured nor manipulated exactly." "Could we ever learn to control the more than 10^300 continuously variable parameters defining the quantum state of such a system? My answer is simple. No, never." These were exactly the main arguments against quantum computing in the 90s. Quantum error correction solved them, by observing that errors can be thought of as discrete, much like a digital computer. It's subtle, but it's also covered in basically every textbook on quantum computing (Nielsen and Chuang is particularly readable).