Can you put this in a post for a general tech audience, @sejaques? So many people think QC is right around the corner, about to break their cryptography.

10 years ago Kelly et al showed bigger rep code circuits do better. The dream was to do the same for a full quantum code. This year we finally did it. arxiv.org/abs/2408.13687 has d=5 surface codes twice as good as d=3. And d=7 twice as good again, outliving the physical qubits.

8 hour train ride, fresh mug of coffee, let's goooo

LOL: "Fake messaging app that actually just BCC's all your messages to the FBI" is a real Gordian knot solution to encryption backdoors. (Though, I worry of the long con: if people think services are already backdoored, it will be easier to pass backdoor legislation)

One in every two thousand CPU cycles of Meta is used for X25519.

"A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits" (Caltech) arxiv.org/abs/2403.12021

In early summer 1936, Albert Einstein and his assistant Nathan Rosen presented a paper to Physical Review, challenging the existence of gravitational waves, something that contradicted the prevailing scientific opinion. Six weeks later, the journal's editor-in-chief, John Torrence Tate, responded with a critical review asking for Einstein's comments on the reviewer feedback. Einstein was surprised and offended by the notion that his paper underwent external review, leading him to decide against submitting any further papers to Physical Review. This week’s paper is about the origins of peer-review. Contrary to common belief, peer-review’s story is way shorter and more complex than we assume. More here: fermatslibrary.com/s/in-refe…

Fun fact. There's a lake in Finland called Neitokainen whose shape is very similar to the geographic shape of Finland.