Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2203354ae1cc424

Jump to content

Talk:1QBit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-advertisement and potential conflict of interest

[edit]

Most of the focus of this article is on how this company is "the next big thing". It reads very much like a self-advertisement and an attempt to boost the company's credibility. Note that the three main contributions come from IP addresses 96.50.25.88, 96.49.97.120, 24.68.106.218 based in Vancouver and Victoria (the company itself is based in Vancouver), which leads me to suspect potential conflict of interest.

Here are a few other issues with the article:

  1. It claims that the D-Wave Two processor has been confirmed as the first "real" quantum computer and gives a reference to an article in ExtremeTech to substantiate this claim. This is a very biased point of view as it completely sweeps under the rug the fact that many D-Wave's claims (especially regarding the "quantumness" of their processor) have been discredited by the scientific community (see the Reception section of the D-Wave article, specifically the last paragraph).
  2. The "Technology Description" section is very vague. I don't see how "an accessible framework for practitioners to access the power of Quantum computing without needing to understand the underlying complexities" says anything about the underlying technology.
  3. The article does not give any details on the actual services or products the company provides.

I will go on and remove some of the things from the article that I find to be an overstatement or irrelevant.

Marozols (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply