Pedro Domingos

That's not what the paper says.

The paper I cited above is the record of 1h coherence My lab performs quantum computations for chemical dynamics using 171Yb+ with 9s coherence times. Again, it's ok to be wrong, rather than trying to parse and reparse to make yourself feel like you were right.

You've provided no peer-reviewed evidence for your claim of a working quantum computer with long-lasting qubits. Stop trying to dodge the question.

Thank you for confirming that you have no peer-reviewed evidence of a working quantum computer with long-lasting qubits.

And what exactly did you compute?

We use this system for chemical dynamics and quantum control, but that data was on HW benchmarking But let's be clear - you're not discussing in good faith any longer. You will keep parsing and reframing until you feel you were right all along.