Quantum Article Parse Failure of the Pontiffical Kind  Two
observations from yesterdays New York Times article about
quantum computing (Moving Toward Quantum Computers.)  First, the
drawing accompanying the article (here) is interesting to me.  I
wonder where they got the idea for it and whether this idea
involved Q*bert, color codes, or topological codes?  Or was it
just the same old: we have no idea how to draw a quantum
computer, so lets just make a cool looking graphic?  Second, I
find this sentence fascinating: “D-Wave has built a system with
more than 50 quantum bits, but it has been greeted skeptically
by many researchers who believe that it has not proved true
entanglement.”  Emphasis mine.  Okay I find it fascinating not
because of the debate about the quantum nature of D-wave’s
machine, but for its language.  If there is “true” entanglement,
what is “false” entanglement?    Further for some reason I can’t
quite pen down the sentence strikes me as awkward.  In
particular it feels like it needs to be