From the article:

Using blind quantum computing, clients can access remote quantum computers to process confidential data with secret algorithms and even verify the results are correct, without revealing any useful information

This is a breakthrough because this level of security is impossible currently (as you allude to in your comment).

Availability will still be an issue, of course.

My point is that the article is about making cloud quantum computing secure; the article doesn’t even mention quantum encryption.

That said, cloud-based quantum cryptography has a big hole in it: the connection to the cloud.

Read the article, the whole point is making the connection to the cloud actually secure.

However, delegating quantum computations to a server carries the same privacy and security concerns that bedevil classical cloud computing. Users are currently unable to hide their work from the server or to independently verify their results in the regime where classical simulations become intractable. Remarkably, the same phenomena that enable quantum computing can leave the server “blind” in a way that conceals the client’s input, output, and algorithm [6–8]; because quantum information cannot be copied and measurements irreversibly change the quantum state, information stored in these systems can be protected with information-theoretic security, and incorrect operation of the server or attempted attacks can be detected—a surprising possibility which has no equivalent in classical computing.

From the paper the article talks about

Did someone not understand what the original comment’s poster meant with “enshittification”? It’s not like he used a completely unrelated term.

Words mean whatever you want them to mean.

You’d be surprised how much soldiers care about facial hair

I also think it’s unjust, but I don’t shoehorn it into every conversation.

Do you not benefit from the current structure? Who built your phone? I wonder how much they think about politics.

I’ve been doing night shifts the past 2.5 years, and I often do “live a day life” and yet I handle it just fine. I guess some people just need less sleep.

Though I do eat way more snacks than I used to and now you have me worried about diabetes (even though I’ve actually slowly lost weight since I started this job).

It does, I search in languages other than English quite often and the results are still high quality IMO.

Yeah that will convince the kids for sure

Honestly? I don’t want anyone to use AVs because I fear they will become popular enough that eventually I’ll be required to use one.

I honestly haven’t done enough research on AV safety to feel comfortable claiming anything concrete about it. I personally don’t feel comfortable with it yet since the technology is very new and I essentially need to trust it with my life. Maybe in a few years I’ll be more convinced.

You don’t understand why people on Lemmy, an alternative platform not controlled by corporations, might not want to get in a car literally controlled by a corporation?

I can easily see a future where your car locks you in and drives you to a police station if you do something “bad”.

As to their safety, I don’t think there are enough AVs to really judge this yet; of course Cruise’s website will claim Cruise AVs cause less accidents.

All the examples you give are things that can be done (and are done in practice) without NFTs, and you don’t really explain why using NFTs would be better.

I guess if there is an issue with verifying authenticity of art and using NFTs solves that issue this makes sense. Selling digital art using NFTs is still dumb IMO, as there is no real concept of owning or displaying an “original digital painting” like you can do with normal paintings; in that case you only get a fairly abstract proof of ownership (NFT avatars on various sites and NFT items in games could change this if implemented widely I guess).

Other than a few similar use cases they still don’t seem very useful, and it I think in most cases they solve issues that already have good solutions.

I buy a picture from you, I get a receipt proving I bought it.

I buy a picture from you on an NFT marketplace, I get an NFT proving I bought it.

What value does an NFT provide in this case? I guess it provides a better proof of the purchase but that hardly seems worth the effort of setting up a wallet and acquiring crypto (for the average person at least). Not to mention the seller also needs to do these things, and I fail to see how he will benefit in this case.

Maybe in a hypothetical world where everyone uses crypto this will make more sense.

That’s his point - NFTs don’t actually solve any problem here, they just add an extra step.

Is Pale Moon even considered secure anymore?

I doubt they’re able to keep up these days honestly…

Chromium with a new UI - what an innovation.

Edit: no way - you need to sign up to use it.

Edit 2: I thought I might as well check it out but not only do you need to sign up, you need to download it for MacOS to finish the signup process.