>what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer?
very obviously this person isn't asking about useful for writing papers...
>You are making up the least charitable possible interpretation of an offhand comment
nothing imagined here. just english. sorry.
> and getting angry at your imagination.
lol you keep insisting i'm angry. i mean if a reviewer reviews your submission and calls you out for inflating numbers i guess they're angry too? oh well
>what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer?
this question is not about papers or research - it is about value for problems/questions outside QC. simple as that. the answer to that question is ~100,000 physical qubits not 100.
again this whole exchange with you just further reaffirms that there's a very very strong reality distortion field around this entire area of academia.