Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- No idea whether the claim is right or wrong, but this processor package is beautiful.by blastonico
- i assumed Boffin was their last nameby dmvjs
- Not heard "Boffin" used in years.by bdavbdav
- > Microsoft's researchers made a basic programming mistake by evaluating the array index – the number identifying a value's position in an array – instead of the value to which the index refers.by 2OEH8eoCRo0
- > boffins willing to go on the record as describing Microsoft's work as "unreliable" and perhaps even "fraudulent."
> Microsoft insisted its work is sound and in early June 2026 announced Majorana 2, a "next-generation topological quantum chip" it developed with the help of its own agentic AI.
AI hallucinates quantum computing bullshit as well or better than humans can hallucinate quantum computing bullshit. Couldn't have a better combination of technologies helping each other out.
by rdtsc - The kinds of bugs really look like human mistakes more than AIby frollogaston
- Majorana fermion and Ettore Majorana are fascinatingby ck2
- When I see “boffin” in a title I think “The Register” so kudos I guess.by Isamu
- Came here to say the same thing.
Sadly, noticing this doesn’t make us boffins.
by antonvs - I think boffin is a Britishism. I have heard it other places, not just on El Reg. Specifically: a lot on Top Gear when it was hosted by Clarkson.by deflator
- Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.by gadders
- Completely unrelated but I'm always sad that Umbra, Penumbra and Equinox aren't used very often in day-to-day speech, very cool sounding words.by sensanaty
- I was surprised to see it - I thought "boffin" was good-natured but highly irreverent, like "nerd". But I can't imagine any publication writing the headline, "Computer nerd claims Microsoft's supposed quantum leap does not compute."
- As soon as I saw this word, I guessed that El Reg was the source.by Anthony-G
- TheRegister - like, say Viz - likes its lazy, outdated journalistic stereotypes and tropes.
That's not being critical of them; its their humour, they mimic the crassness and condescension of tabloid journalism, particularly that of the 70s and 80s (even tabloids have moved on).
When you see cliches like boffin, nanny state, egghead etc etc in a HN title, you can be reasonably confident its El Reg.
by mellosouls - I guess Microsoft upper management doesn't understand anything at all about quantum computing and they are "scammed" by Microsoft research people in quantum computing telling them they are making breakthroughts, that in a few years that can become a real thing, etc. They just need to publish some impressive sounding papers a little bit once in a while and the thing keeps rolling.
May be it is just me but when I see all these quantum computing pseudo results I wonder how people can believe this thing has any hope to work at all so much it is ungrounded to reality.
All in all, the whole fundation of the quantum treatment is flawed in my humble opinion because of the idea of wave-packet collapse, when a measurement is done, is by itself completely unsound. However they assume it holds perfectly and base a ton on speculative calculations assuming that principle holds perfectly which is far from true.
Successful engineering and technology development is not done having a crazy idea that holds only based on a number of highly incertain assumptions but it needs solid ideas developed incrementally iterating from things we already know. First electricity, then basic electronics, the diode, then bipolar transistors, then J-FET, then MOSFET and so on.
by frankohn - >the idea of wave-packet collapse, when a measurement is done, is by itself completely unsound.
It sounds crazy if you read about the math first. Which almost everyone does ... now. But in the lab, if you set up a detector array that reports individual discrete particles arriving one at a time, that is exactly what you see. You just see random arrival times. You don't see a smooth wavefunction that then collapses.
The problem was never to start with the math and try to understand what's happening to a "wavefunction" or how the heck it could possibly "collapse." Instead they started with the crazy experimental results and made math that seems to always fit so far.
by nyeah - Not the first time that a Nature publication's "too good to be true" results turn out to be based on simple programming errors... Nature 532, 210 (2016) was retracted after it was shown that a hand-coded gradient function, used in gradient descent, had a simple sign error (details in arXiv 2003.05808).by rav
- You’d really think they’d really check everything and cross their t’s after their previous issues in marjorana fermion QC. I generally have a very high opinion of MS research, but this is getting a bit embarrassing.by mjhay
- Looks that the next step of this "project" is selecting a patsy and blaming all on that one sacrificial personby rvba
- Was pleasantly surprised to see the exact bug in here, in a "The Register" article of all places. Legg showed that fixing the bug invalidates the research. Seems Microsoft is responding to a clear problem with a vague dismissal.
Edit: Oh, The Register is a true tech paper, guess the name makes sense for that. Got mixed up cause there are a bunch of general papers called something Register.
by frollogaston - Even without this, the whole thing was snake oil from the start, and this was pointed out by a number of researchers at the time. If you need to invent a new form of physics to make your claims work then there's something very fishy going on.
- Yeah, it's always weird that they write and format the articles like the absolute worst tier of new sites, and then the articles themselves are oftenn very technicalby swiftcoder
- The Register is a tech paper that is modelled on various British tabloids (daily mail, the sun). Sometimes it's humor, sometimes it's real news and occasionally they even break a new story.by dekhn
- https://github.com/microsoft/azure-quantum-tgp
```
return xr.apply_ufunc(
) ```lambda x: (x - x[::-1]) / 2, conductance, input_core_dims=[dims], output_core_dims=[dims], vectorize=True,Reading the article about how they filtered and cherry-picked specific regions, I got curious about the actual asymmetry computation, so I looked up the source code. Looking at it, they seem to have used memory offsets as if they were physical coordinates, but they're only looking at the array index order, not the actual values. x[::-1] isn't measuring physical coordinates; it's just reversing the array. So it seems this bias axis mentioned in the article only forms when things are symmetric. But in typical numerical computations, isn't it pretty common to reverse arrays like this? In this case, there must be a reason why the physical coordinates change. Should we be verifying invariants here? Sometimes I see people who find these kinds of issues and I think they're really amazing. Even after reading the article, tracing it, and debugging it, I kept wondering what the problem was..
by jdw64 - On Hacker News you can indent code samples with two spaces, like this:
return xr.apply_ufunc( lambda x: (x - x[::-1]) / 2, conductance, input_core_dims=[dims], output_core_dims=[dims], vectorize=True, )by simonw