6 ms·

Quantinuum H-Series quantum computer

24 points by StackOverlord 3y ago

rbanffy 3y ago
Even if the QV benchmark isnt great, 1000x the next best result is something.
dmm 3y ago
> Our quantum volume data is taken on our commercial systems interwoven with customer jobs. Are there use-cases for QC other than ruining asymmetrical encryption?
- fastneutron 3y ago
  Anything involving simulation of quantum mechanical systems. Think materials, molecules, nuclei, general field theories, etc. The fixation on asymmetric encryption vulnerability is overblown at this point. The near-completion of the post-quantum cryptographic standards and the still long road to fault tolerance make this essentially a non-issue to anyone that hasn’t been living under a rock for the past 20 years.
  - tjoff 3y ago
    People encrypting stuff 10 years ago did so under the impression that it would be safe far longer. People encrypting stuff today might not have an option to make it resilient. How is that not a problem?
    - fastneutron 3y ago
      The migration to post-quantum cryptosystems is a different issue than standardizing one in the first place, and I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the organizational cat-herding needed to achieve such a migration. The US government is beating the drum to have the migration of critical systems completed by 2030, and there are plenty of IT consulting firms who will happily sell post-quantum migration services to get ahead of that deadline. If you're worried about pre-harvested ciphertext that nation-states are sitting on, waiting for the right hardware to come along to decrypt it, I personally have no solution. The genie's probably out of the bottle on that one. Hopefully the affected parties took, or are taking mitigating actions.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Are you saying they are primarily a research tool?
    - fastneutron 3y ago
      In their present state, yes. These things are basically sophisticated physics experiments with a cloud API. This is fine for research, education and training, but currently insufficient for problems of economic value.
      - detourdog 3y ago
        Thanks for answering of course the result is more questions. I suppose the end goal is to have the overall material report a status on its environment and stresses. Are they relatively fast? Are they on the same time frame as fusion?
        fastneutron 3y ago
        In principle, the advantages of quantum computers are delivered not in speed or throughput, but in algorithmic scaling. For example, the well-known Grover's search algorithm scales as O(sqrt(N)), as opposed to O(n) for classical linear search. Similarly, Shor's factoring algorithm comes with an exponential scaling speedup, taking a nominally O(2^n) problem and bringing it to O(n^k). Problems related to physics and chemistry simulations are falling in various places along that quadratic-to-exponential speedup spectrum as well. In practice, there's expected to be a larger constant overhead than with classical computing hardware, since error correction would need to be performed continuously during operation, and the physical operations of addressing qubits are inherently slower than classical CPU or GPU operations. There have been a few publications [1,2] asserting that this overhead essentially negates any quadratic scaling benefits, and that only cubic or better speedups would deliver any practical advantage. This assumes no further improvement in operation times or error correction overhead. As far as timeframe, it's anyone's guess. Error correction will be needed to get beyond these research prototypes, and I think we'll have a better sense over the next 2-5 years as to how hard that will be to engineer. 1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04149 https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04149 2. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523
dilawar 3y ago
I actually dont understand most of quantum stuff. When they say 16 qbits, are these simulated qbits or real? Aren't real qbits impossible to make currently because of noise problem? When I was doing my masters, people were talking about replacing heavily doped channel of silicon transister with carbon nanotube. Turns out the hardest problem was making a decent connection between nanotube and metal. I dont think the problem has been solved yet. I am guessing that well see a functional carbon nanotubes in silicon transistor at least a decade before we see real qbits? After all fabrication processes must be similar at this scale.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  There are real qubits, that suffer from all the reliability issues implied by what you're talking about. There are also error correction algorithms to try and salvage from the mess the computational equivalent of error-free real qubits, through error correction on a bunch of real-world, error-prone qubits. The industry standard (such as it is) when reporting qubit counts is that you report your qubit logical equivalent, because that's what counts for computation. If your chip has 500 qubits with a ruinous error rate that requires a god-tier error correction algorithm to achieve a functional result equivalent to a 12 qubit computer, you should report that as "We made a 12 qubit computer".
- fastneutron 3y ago
  A qubit is any addressable 2-level quantum system. Think spins, oscillation modes, energy levels, polarization, etc. All of these have been implemented and demonstrated to varying degrees, with superconductors and trapped ions (this article) being the farthest along. Noise is indeed a problem, and right now these systems can’t execute more than a few hundred operations at most before decohering to the point of randomness. There is an error rate threshold (~1e-3 - 1e-4) at which error correction becomes possible, and the field has been hovering around that threshold for the past 3 years or so. I think we’ll know within the next 5 years whether or not it’s possible to engineer these error correction schemes in a scalable way.
Mistletoe 3y ago
I’m seeing a lot of quantum computing stuff everywhere (here, investing subreddits) now. It feels strongly like firms are trying to profit from AI hype 2.0, but make it quantum.
- detourdog 3y ago
  That is the cycle. From a big picture it is starting to make sense. VCs throw large sums at a problem. Find out the hard problems and move on to other low hangin fruit until they hit a wall. Financial failure maybe the result but human progress moves on. Outside the hype-cycle is long term development feeding off any advancement that can be applied.
nonameiguess 3y ago
They kind of say this, but we really need better quantum benchmarks. How does something like quantum volume analogize to address space or FLOPs or something somewhat intelligle in classical computing? What were the space and cost requirements to achieve this growth? I was under the impression years back that a major obstacle to quantum computing was keeping qubits from decohering required immense space and extreme cooling compared to classical computers. How has qubit density per dollar spent on the computer changed over this same span of time? Did the technology actually get better or did they just throw more money at it?
- gaze 3y ago
  Without error correction, these benchmarks are going to be a bit weird and fluffy. It’s a bit like racing a half-built car. There’s the other bit of complexity that the connectivity matters a great deal. Supercomputers can be connected on a grid, torus, fat tree, etc. and the different connectivity will lend to different problem solving capabilities in a somewhat subtle way. Hence different benchmarks highlight different capabilities, and correspondingly, each company will push a benchmark that makes their machine look the best.
dave333 3y ago
What real problems have quantum computers solved? I would assume they can solve suitably trivial examples with their limited capability in a way that is demonstrably superior to traditional computing.
- sghiassy 3y ago
  When Voltaire was experimenting with electricity, no one could ever imagine what electricity was good for
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    ... and when Becher was experimenting with phlogiston, no-one knew where that would lead.
    - JustifyContent 3y ago
      Lol at comparing demonstrable advanced technology like quantum computing to phlogiston. Anyway, experiments to prove/disprove phlogiston lead directly to our understanding of combustion and discovery of oxygen...
      - jjgreen 3y ago
        I think you rather miss the point, when electricity was postulated, no-one would know where it would lead, I point out that the same is true for phlogiston; one changed the world and the other went nowhere. My point is that just because something has so-far not been shown to be useful does not imply that it will eventually change the world.
  - dave333 3y ago
    Interesting that electricity has been useful in bringing about things Voltaire championed such as freedom of speech, and abolition of (slave) labor. However I think you meant Volta the inventor of the battery. Also QC seems to suffer from the opposite of lack of imagination about what it might be good for.
seydor 3y ago
i classify QC in the same shelf as cryptocurrency. Solutions asking for problems that are somehow persistently overvalued.
- jdjdjdhhd 3y ago
  They are overvalued until you understand how to use them
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Are these systems delicate? Is this a higher form of "solid state device" Are they simple to manufacture. I'm curious about them but I'm skeptical on their usefulness compared to existing things that can actual be observed with the naked eye. I'm a big fan of trouble shooting with an ohm meter and I could apply the same to a techniques to a visible light optical circuit. What tools are used to trouble shoots a qubit?
    - pmoriarty 3y ago
      "I'm skeptical on their usefulness compared to existing things that can actual be observed with the naked eye. I'm a big fan of trouble shooting with an ohm meter and I could apply the same to a techniques to a visible light optical circuit." What you are measuring with an ohm meter is not visible to the naked eye. Electricity is not visible to the naked eye. Neither is heat. Neither are x-rays. Neither is math. Their effects might be, but they themselves aren't. It's easy to come up with more examples of things not visible to the naked eye which are very useful.
      - detourdog 3y ago
        The ohm meter is visible and it is one of many ways of detecting electron flow. I was trying to ask how the qubits are observed. Observing the phenomena whether directly or indirectly we built a sophisticated society. I want to know how hard it is to observe a qubit. The directness is what I want. What indirect effects of a qubit can one observe with the naked eye?
cubefox 3y ago
So IBM introduced a quantum computer capability measure (Quantum Volume) which is more meaningful than counting qubits that aren't comparable. But now this post sounds suspiciously like this company is goodharting[1] the new measure. They mention that there are criticisms of Quantum Volume, but they don't show their results for any other benchmark. I imagine it is way easier to goodhart a single benchmark than several. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- deng 3y ago
  Yes, here's Scott Aaronson's opinion on that measure: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4649 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4649 TL;DR: Instead of using a single measure, just give all the details on the machine as clear as possible: > How many qubits do you have? With what coherence times? With what connectivity? What are the 1- and 2-qubit gate fidelities? What depth of circuit can you do? What resources do the standard classical algorithms need to simulate your system? Most importantly: what’s the main drawback of your system, the spec that’s the worst, the one you most need to improve? What prevents you from having a scalable quantum computer right now? And are you going to tell me, or will you make me scour Appendix III.B in your paper, or worse yet, ask one of your competitors?
houseatrielah 3y ago
These circuits have a width, meaning how many qubits are involved, and a depth, meaning the number of discrete time steps during which the circuit can run gates before the qubits decohere... The Quantum Volume protocol identifies the largest square-shaped circuit — one where the width and depth are equal https://medium.com/qiskit/what-is-quantum-volume-anyway-a4dff801c36f https://medium.com/qiskit/what-is-quantum-volume-anyway-a4df... Current state of the art is 20-qbits somehow equals a quantum volume of 2^19, which I don't get since 20^2 = 400. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_volume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_volume
- archgoon 3y ago
  [dead]
konradha 3y ago
Disentangling hype from practicality: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523
stodor89 3y ago
I love that OP changed the title to comply with the Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
m3kw9 3y ago
Yeah it’s not taking off till it reaches mass business use cases, right now is still for very micro niche use cases. It can’t beat classical computer for most practical cases
swalsh 3y ago
I guess we'll know quantum computers have reached critical mass when Satoshis bitcoin stash mysteriously transfers to a new account.
bsuvc 3y ago
It's a little sad to see the amount of cynicism and negativity here around quantum computing. It's so early. To compare this to traditional computers, we are basically in the stage of a mainframe taking up an entire room. Where they are a novelty, not something every business has yet. I'm sure there was a lot of skepticism from so-called "smart people" back then too. Sure, maybe some PR people have over-hyped quantum computing for publicity, but that doesn't say anything about the future if the technology itself.
- deng 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure quantum computing is not seen negatively around here. In fact, articles on Scott Aaronson's blog for instance turn up regularly. What is seen negatively for sure is the hype train, to which this article clearly belongs, as it is basically a press release for Quantinuum. I mean, on the one hand, I'm happy that people have figured out how to get VC money for fundamental quantum research. However, I think in the end, this kind of hype will do more harm than good for the field. The hype train will eventually crash, and researchers will go elsewhere (see also: neural networks in the AI winter).
  - bsuvc 3y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right. I guess maybe I read the mood wrong on this.
- fastneutron 3y ago
  Depends on the time of day. Sometimes quantum topics generate good discussion here, and other times it’s a peanut gallery of minimally-informed dismissals. I’ve had a heck of a time trying to find a decent online community to discuss this stuff in a properly nuanced way.
JackFr 3y ago
[flagged]
dang 3y ago
The submitted title ("Is Quantum Computing taking off?") broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Titles are by far the biggest influence on comments so this rule is an important one! In this case the generic title led to a generic thread, which is not what we want here. I've changed it now.

24 points by StackOverlord 3y ago

Even if the QV benchmark isnt great, 1000x the next best result is something.

dmm 3y ago

> Our quantum volume data is taken on our commercial systems interwoven with customer jobs. Are there use-cases for QC other than ruining asymmetrical encryption?

fastneutron 3y ago
Anything involving simulation of quantum mechanical systems. Think materials, molecules, nuclei, general field theories, etc. The fixation on asymmetric encryption vulnerability is overblown at this point. The near-completion of the post-quantum cryptographic standards and the still long road to fault tolerance make this essentially a non-issue to anyone that hasn’t been living under a rock for the past 20 years.
- tjoff 3y ago
  People encrypting stuff 10 years ago did so under the impression that it would be safe far longer. People encrypting stuff today might not have an option to make it resilient. How is that not a problem?
  - fastneutron 3y ago
    The migration to post-quantum cryptosystems is a different issue than standardizing one in the first place, and I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the organizational cat-herding needed to achieve such a migration. The US government is beating the drum to have the migration of critical systems completed by 2030, and there are plenty of IT consulting firms who will happily sell post-quantum migration services to get ahead of that deadline. If you're worried about pre-harvested ciphertext that nation-states are sitting on, waiting for the right hardware to come along to decrypt it, I personally have no solution. The genie's probably out of the bottle on that one. Hopefully the affected parties took, or are taking mitigating actions.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Are you saying they are primarily a research tool?
  - fastneutron 3y ago
    In their present state, yes. These things are basically sophisticated physics experiments with a cloud API. This is fine for research, education and training, but currently insufficient for problems of economic value.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      Thanks for answering of course the result is more questions. I suppose the end goal is to have the overall material report a status on its environment and stresses. Are they relatively fast? Are they on the same time frame as fusion?
      - fastneutron 3y ago
        In principle, the advantages of quantum computers are delivered not in speed or throughput, but in algorithmic scaling. For example, the well-known Grover's search algorithm scales as O(sqrt(N)), as opposed to O(n) for classical linear search. Similarly, Shor's factoring algorithm comes with an exponential scaling speedup, taking a nominally O(2^n) problem and bringing it to O(n^k). Problems related to physics and chemistry simulations are falling in various places along that quadratic-to-exponential speedup spectrum as well. In practice, there's expected to be a larger constant overhead than with classical computing hardware, since error correction would need to be performed continuously during operation, and the physical operations of addressing qubits are inherently slower than classical CPU or GPU operations. There have been a few publications [1,2] asserting that this overhead essentially negates any quadratic scaling benefits, and that only cubic or better speedups would deliver any practical advantage. This assumes no further improvement in operation times or error correction overhead. As far as timeframe, it's anyone's guess. Error correction will be needed to get beyond these research prototypes, and I think we'll have a better sense over the next 2-5 years as to how hard that will be to engineer. 1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04149 https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04149 2. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523

dilawar 3y ago

I actually dont understand most of quantum stuff. When they say 16 qbits, are these simulated qbits or real? Aren't real qbits impossible to make currently because of noise problem? When I was doing my masters, people were talking about replacing heavily doped channel of silicon transister with carbon nanotube. Turns out the hardest problem was making a decent connection between nanotube and metal. I dont think the problem has been solved yet. I am guessing that well see a functional carbon nanotubes in silicon transistor at least a decade before we see real qbits? After all fabrication processes must be similar at this scale.

lucubratory 3y ago
There are real qubits, that suffer from all the reliability issues implied by what you're talking about. There are also error correction algorithms to try and salvage from the mess the computational equivalent of error-free real qubits, through error correction on a bunch of real-world, error-prone qubits. The industry standard (such as it is) when reporting qubit counts is that you report your qubit logical equivalent, because that's what counts for computation. If your chip has 500 qubits with a ruinous error rate that requires a god-tier error correction algorithm to achieve a functional result equivalent to a 12 qubit computer, you should report that as "We made a 12 qubit computer".
fastneutron 3y ago
A qubit is any addressable 2-level quantum system. Think spins, oscillation modes, energy levels, polarization, etc. All of these have been implemented and demonstrated to varying degrees, with superconductors and trapped ions (this article) being the farthest along. Noise is indeed a problem, and right now these systems can’t execute more than a few hundred operations at most before decohering to the point of randomness. There is an error rate threshold (~1e-3 - 1e-4) at which error correction becomes possible, and the field has been hovering around that threshold for the past 3 years or so. I think we’ll know within the next 5 years whether or not it’s possible to engineer these error correction schemes in a scalable way.

Mistletoe 3y ago

I’m seeing a lot of quantum computing stuff everywhere (here, investing subreddits) now. It feels strongly like firms are trying to profit from AI hype 2.0, but make it quantum.

detourdog 3y ago
That is the cycle. From a big picture it is starting to make sense. VCs throw large sums at a problem. Find out the hard problems and move on to other low hangin fruit until they hit a wall. Financial failure maybe the result but human progress moves on. Outside the hype-cycle is long term development feeding off any advancement that can be applied.

nonameiguess 3y ago

They kind of say this, but we really need better quantum benchmarks. How does something like quantum volume analogize to address space or FLOPs or something somewhat intelligle in classical computing? What were the space and cost requirements to achieve this growth? I was under the impression years back that a major obstacle to quantum computing was keeping qubits from decohering required immense space and extreme cooling compared to classical computers. How has qubit density per dollar spent on the computer changed over this same span of time? Did the technology actually get better or did they just throw more money at it?

gaze 3y ago
Without error correction, these benchmarks are going to be a bit weird and fluffy. It’s a bit like racing a half-built car. There’s the other bit of complexity that the connectivity matters a great deal. Supercomputers can be connected on a grid, torus, fat tree, etc. and the different connectivity will lend to different problem solving capabilities in a somewhat subtle way. Hence different benchmarks highlight different capabilities, and correspondingly, each company will push a benchmark that makes their machine look the best.

dave333 3y ago

What real problems have quantum computers solved? I would assume they can solve suitably trivial examples with their limited capability in a way that is demonstrably superior to traditional computing.

sghiassy 3y ago
When Voltaire was experimenting with electricity, no one could ever imagine what electricity was good for
- jjgreen 3y ago
  ... and when Becher was experimenting with phlogiston, no-one knew where that would lead.
  - JustifyContent 3y ago
    Lol at comparing demonstrable advanced technology like quantum computing to phlogiston. Anyway, experiments to prove/disprove phlogiston lead directly to our understanding of combustion and discovery of oxygen...
    - jjgreen 3y ago
      I think you rather miss the point, when electricity was postulated, no-one would know where it would lead, I point out that the same is true for phlogiston; one changed the world and the other went nowhere. My point is that just because something has so-far not been shown to be useful does not imply that it will eventually change the world.
- dave333 3y ago
  Interesting that electricity has been useful in bringing about things Voltaire championed such as freedom of speech, and abolition of (slave) labor. However I think you meant Volta the inventor of the battery. Also QC seems to suffer from the opposite of lack of imagination about what it might be good for.

seydor 3y ago

i classify QC in the same shelf as cryptocurrency. Solutions asking for problems that are somehow persistently overvalued.

jdjdjdhhd 3y ago
They are overvalued until you understand how to use them
- detourdog 3y ago
  Are these systems delicate? Is this a higher form of "solid state device" Are they simple to manufacture. I'm curious about them but I'm skeptical on their usefulness compared to existing things that can actual be observed with the naked eye. I'm a big fan of trouble shooting with an ohm meter and I could apply the same to a techniques to a visible light optical circuit. What tools are used to trouble shoots a qubit?
  - pmoriarty 3y ago
    "I'm skeptical on their usefulness compared to existing things that can actual be observed with the naked eye. I'm a big fan of trouble shooting with an ohm meter and I could apply the same to a techniques to a visible light optical circuit." What you are measuring with an ohm meter is not visible to the naked eye. Electricity is not visible to the naked eye. Neither is heat. Neither are x-rays. Neither is math. Their effects might be, but they themselves aren't. It's easy to come up with more examples of things not visible to the naked eye which are very useful.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      The ohm meter is visible and it is one of many ways of detecting electron flow. I was trying to ask how the qubits are observed. Observing the phenomena whether directly or indirectly we built a sophisticated society. I want to know how hard it is to observe a qubit. The directness is what I want. What indirect effects of a qubit can one observe with the naked eye?

cubefox 3y ago

So IBM introduced a quantum computer capability measure (Quantum Volume) which is more meaningful than counting qubits that aren't comparable. But now this post sounds suspiciously like this company is goodharting[1] the new measure. They mention that there are criticisms of Quantum Volume, but they don't show their results for any other benchmark. I imagine it is way easier to goodhart a single benchmark than several. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

deng 3y ago
Yes, here's Scott Aaronson's opinion on that measure: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4649 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4649 TL;DR: Instead of using a single measure, just give all the details on the machine as clear as possible: > How many qubits do you have? With what coherence times? With what connectivity? What are the 1- and 2-qubit gate fidelities? What depth of circuit can you do? What resources do the standard classical algorithms need to simulate your system? Most importantly: what’s the main drawback of your system, the spec that’s the worst, the one you most need to improve? What prevents you from having a scalable quantum computer right now? And are you going to tell me, or will you make me scour Appendix III.B in your paper, or worse yet, ask one of your competitors?

houseatrielah 3y ago

These circuits have a width, meaning how many qubits are involved, and a depth, meaning the number of discrete time steps during which the circuit can run gates before the qubits decohere... The Quantum Volume protocol identifies the largest square-shaped circuit — one where the width and depth are equal https://medium.com/qiskit/what-is-quantum-volume-anyway-a4dff801c36f https://medium.com/qiskit/what-is-quantum-volume-anyway-a4df... Current state of the art is 20-qbits somehow equals a quantum volume of 2^19, which I don't get since 20^2 = 400. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_volume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_volume

archgoon 3y ago
[dead]

konradha 3y ago

Disentangling hype from practicality: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00523

stodor89 3y ago

I love that OP changed the title to comply with the Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

m3kw9 3y ago

Yeah it’s not taking off till it reaches mass business use cases, right now is still for very micro niche use cases. It can’t beat classical computer for most practical cases

swalsh 3y ago

I guess we'll know quantum computers have reached critical mass when Satoshis bitcoin stash mysteriously transfers to a new account.

bsuvc 3y ago

It's a little sad to see the amount of cynicism and negativity here around quantum computing. It's so early. To compare this to traditional computers, we are basically in the stage of a mainframe taking up an entire room. Where they are a novelty, not something every business has yet. I'm sure there was a lot of skepticism from so-called "smart people" back then too. Sure, maybe some PR people have over-hyped quantum computing for publicity, but that doesn't say anything about the future if the technology itself.

deng 3y ago
I'm pretty sure quantum computing is not seen negatively around here. In fact, articles on Scott Aaronson's blog for instance turn up regularly. What is seen negatively for sure is the hype train, to which this article clearly belongs, as it is basically a press release for Quantinuum. I mean, on the one hand, I'm happy that people have figured out how to get VC money for fundamental quantum research. However, I think in the end, this kind of hype will do more harm than good for the field. The hype train will eventually crash, and researchers will go elsewhere (see also: neural networks in the AI winter).
- bsuvc 3y ago
  Yeah, you're probably right. I guess maybe I read the mood wrong on this.
fastneutron 3y ago
Depends on the time of day. Sometimes quantum topics generate good discussion here, and other times it’s a peanut gallery of minimally-informed dismissals. I’ve had a heck of a time trying to find a decent online community to discuss this stuff in a properly nuanced way.

JackFr 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago

The submitted title ("Is Quantum Computing taking off?") broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Titles are by far the biggest influence on comments so this rule is an important one! In this case the generic title led to a generic thread, which is not what we want here. I've changed it now.