<a href="https://github.com/microsoft/azure-quantum-tgp" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/microsoft/azure-quantum-tgp</a><p>```<p>return xr.apply_ufunc(<p><pre><code> lambda x: (x - x[::-1]) / 2,
conductance,
input_core_dims=[dims],
output_core_dims=[dims],
vectorize=True,
</code></pre>
)
```<p>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..
On Hacker News you can indent code samples with two spaces, like this:<p><pre><code> return xr.apply_ufunc(
lambda x: (x - x[::-1]) / 2,
conductance,
input_core_dims=[dims],
output_core_dims=[dims],
vectorize=True,
)</code></pre>
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.<p>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.
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.
When I see “boffin” in a title I think “The Register” so kudos I guess.
Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.
As soon as I saw this word, I guessed that El Reg was the source.
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."
"Good natured but highly irreverent" is pretty much <i>The Register</i>'s house style.
To be fair, "boffin" usually implies someone has relevant (usually scientific) expertise, but nerd doesn't. Henry Legg has the relevant credentials to give weight to his claims, he's not just some random basement nerd.
The Register is highly irreverent, as a rule.
It's typical of the Register. They always use the word "boffin" for expert/scientist. It's a british word used to describe a clever person.
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.
> boffins willing to go on the record as describing Microsoft's work as "unreliable" and perhaps even "fraudulent."<p>> 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.<p>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.
Majorana fermion and Ettore Majorana are fascinating<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana</a>
Is it premature to assume it's due to AI Microslop?
[flagged]